Cited by 1,584Philosophy and Theoretical ScienceEpistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsFree Will and Agency

Sensations and Brain Processes

Smart, J. J. C.·1959·The Philosophical Review

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 · 10.2307/2182164

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.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smart, J. J. C.
Corresponding author
Smart, J. J. C.
Venue
The Philosophical Review
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1959-04
Volume
68
Issue
2
Pages
141
ISSN
0031-8108 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4253719251
Cited by
1,584
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 150 · 2018: 77 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 24
FWCI
2.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Philosophical Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
sensation, brain processes, philosophy of mind, perception, neuroscience of perception

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