PreprintCited by 23Philosophy and Theoretical ScienceFree Will and AgencyNeural dynamics and brain function

The Consciousness Theories Studies (ConTraSt) database: analyzing and comparing empirical studies of consciousness theories

Open access
Yaron, Itay, Melloni, Lucia, Pitts, Michael, Mudrik, Liad·2021·bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Abstract

Understanding how consciousness arises from neural activity remains one of the biggest challenges for neuroscience. Numerous theories have been proposed in recent years, each gaining independent empirical support. Currently, there is no comprehensive, quantitative and theory-neutral overview of the field that enables an evaluation of how theoretical frameworks interact with empirical research. We provide a bird’s eye view on studies that interpreted their findings in light of at least one of four leading neuroscientific theories of consciousness (N=412 experiments), asking how methodological choices of the researchers might affect the final conclusions. We found that supporting a specific theory can be predicted solely from methodological choices, irrespective of findings. Furthermore, most studies interpret their findings post-hoc, rather than a-priori testing critical predictions of the theories. Our results highlight challenges for the field and provide researchers with a unique, open-access website to further analyze trends in the neuroscience of consciousness.

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 · 10.1101/2021.06.10.447863

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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?

  • Empirical research has focused on testing theories separately, rather than on directly contrasting them to evaluate their explanatory and predictive power.

    “Empirical research has focused on testing theories separately, rather than on directly contrasting them to evaluate their explanatory and predictive power [8].”

    From An adversarial collaboration protocol for testing contrasting predictions of global neuronal workspace and integrated information theory (2023) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Discussion reports that only 7% of the 412 experiments directly compared predictions from two or more theories, supporting the claim that direct contrasts are rare. But the Division of experiments with respect to the theories says only 35% explicitly tested theory predictions; many instead interpreted findings post hoc or merely mentioned a theory. Thus, saying research has focused on testing theories separately overstates how much of it tested theories at all. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yaron, I., Melloni, L., Pitts, M., & Mudrik, L.
Affiliations
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • Reed College (US)
Corresponding author
Yaron, Itay
Venue
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2021-06-10
OpenAlex
W3169141660
Cited by
21
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1829470)
  • Templeton World Charity Foundation (TWCF0378, TWCF0599)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
theory of consciousness, neuroscience of consciousness, methodological choices, post-hoc explanation

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