Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40995066›Full record

ArticleNeuroscience of consciousness2025

Computational modelling shows evidence in support of both sensory and frontal theories of consciousness.

Kavindu H Bandara, Elise G Rowe, Marta I Garrido

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroscience of consciousness, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kavindu H BandaraMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0693-1909
Elise G RoweMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3585-4263
Marta I GarridoMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0679-4959

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) in consciousness is hotly debated. Frontal theories argue that the PFC is necessary for consciousness, while sensory theories propose that consciousness arises from recurrent activity in the posterior cortex alone, with activity in the PFC resulting from the mere act of reporting. To resolve this dispute, we re-analysed an electroencephalography (EEG) dataset of 30 participants from a no-report inattentional blindness paradigm where faces are (un)consciously perceived. We performed source reconstruction on the EEG data to first establish the robustly active regions, which were then used to build the networks in the dynamic causal modelling analysis. Dynamic causal modelling was used to estimate the effective connectivity between the key contended brain regions, the prefrontal and the posterior cortices. Then, a second-level parametric empirical Bayesian model was conducted to determine how connectivity was modulated by awareness and task-relevance. While an initial data-driven search could not corroborate neither sensory nor frontal theories of consciousness, a more directed hypothesis-driven analysis revealed strong evidence that both theories could explain the data, with a very slight preference for frontal theories. Specifically, a model with backward connections switched off within the posterior cortex explained awareness better (53%) than a model without backward connections from the PFC to sensory regions. Our findings provide some support for a subtle, yet crucial, contribution of the frontal cortex in consciousness, and highlight the need to revise current theories of consciousness.

Indexed as

computational modellingconsciousnessdynamic causal modellinginattentional blindnessPFC

Identifiers

PMID40995066
PMCPMC12456173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.