PreprintCited by 84Embodied and Extended CognitionPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceNeural dynamics and brain function

The Predictive Global Neuronal Workspace: A Formal Active Inference Model of Visual Consciousness

Open access
Whyte, Christopher J., Smith, Ryan·2020·Progress in Neurobiology

Preprint — published as 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2020.101918 · Paper page

Abstract

The global neuronal workspace (GNW) model has inspired over two decades of hypothesis driven research on the neural basis consciousness. However, recent studies have reported findings that are at odds with empirical predictions of the model. Further, the macro-anatomical focus of current GNW research has limited the specificity of predictions afforded by the model. In this paper we present a neurocomputational model – based on Active Inference – that captures central architectural elements of the GNW and is able to address these limitations. The resulting ‘predictive global workspace’ casts neuronal dynamics as approximating Bayesian inference, allowing precise, testable predictions at both the behavioural and neural levels of description. We report simulations demonstrating the model’s ability to reproduce: 1) the electrophysiological and behaviour results observed in previous studies of inattentional blindness; and 2) the previously introduced four-way taxonomy predicted by the GNW, which describes the relationship between consciousness, attention, and sensory signal strength. We then illustrate how our model can reconcile/explain (apparently) conflicting findings, extend the GNW taxonomy to include the influence of prior expectations, and inspire novel paradigms to test associated behavioural and neural predictions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2020.02.11.944611

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • GNWT has been increasingly described in terms of Bayesian inference, including in a recently proposed Predictive Global Neuronal Workspace model.

    “GNWT has been increasingly described in terms of Bayesian inference (Dehaene, 2020; Mashour et al., 2020), including in a recently proposed Predictive Global Neuronal Workspace model (Whyte and Smith, 2020).”

    From An Integrated World Modeling Theory (IWMT) of Consciousness (2020) · cites this paper as Whyte and Smith, 2020

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Whyte, C. J., & Smith, R.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Laureate Institute for Brain Research (US)
Corresponding author
Whyte, Christopher J.
Venue
Progress in Neurobiology
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2020-02-12
Volume
199
Pages
101918-101918
ISSN
0301-0082 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3092295352
Cited by
84
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11
FWCI
6.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Progress in Neurobiology (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
William K. Warren Foundation
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 › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
global neuronal workspace theory, visual awareness, active inference, Bayesian inference, inattentional blindness, attention, prior expectations, neural basis of consciousness, neurocomputational model
MeSH terms
Attention, Bayes Theorem, Cognition, Consciousness, Humans, Neurons

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