Cited by 3Embodied and Extended CognitionPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceFree Will and Agency

A Rosetta Stone hypothesis for neurophenomenology: mathematical predictions from predictive processing

Open access
Da Costa, Lancelot, Seth, Anil K, Friston, Karl, Ramstead, Maxwell J D, Sandved-Smith, Lars·2026·Neuroscience of Consciousness

Abstract

Consciousness science faces the challenge of bridging first-person experience with third-person empirical measurements. Neurophenomenology aims to build such ‘generative passages’ connecting the content of experience with behavioural and neuroscientific data. However, the mathematical machinery for such bridges remains underdeveloped. Here we develop a Rosetta Stone hypothesis from predictive processing, where beliefs serve as a central hub connecting phenomenology, behaviour, and neural dynamics. This hinges on a central technical assumption that phenomenology is a function of beliefs. We pursue a conditional approach: if this assumption holds, then certain predictions mathematically follow. We derive predictions for subjective similarity judgements, cognitive metabolic cost, subjective cognitive effort, and time perception. We review the connection between beliefs and neural dynamics to complete the generative passage for neurophenomenology, omitting the connection between beliefs and behaviour as this is already well-documented elsewhere. Testing our predictions will inform the validity of the central assumption connecting beliefs and phenomenology, and advance the neurophenomenology research programme.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/nc/niag026

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 3

Authors
Da Costa, L., Seth, A. K., Friston, K., Ramstead, M. J. D., & Sandved-Smith, L.
Affiliations
  • VERSES AI Research Lab , 2121 Avenue of the Stars, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90016 ,
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
  • Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Sandved-Smith, Lars
Venue
Neuroscience of Consciousness
Published
2026
Volume
2026
Issue
1
Pages
niag026-niag026
ISSN
2057-2107 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4403815233
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1
FWCI
8.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience of Consciousness (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
European Research Council (ERC-AdG-101019524)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
neurophenomenology, predictive processing, phenomenology, belief, consciousness, time perception, first-person experience, neural dynamics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review