ArticleNeuroscience of consciousness2025
The multiple generator hypothesis of consciousness.
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 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Naturalizing perceptual experience: the explanatory power of probabilistic computation and the holographic solution.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Pluralism within limits: how to make the idea of multiple NCC kinds useful.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2026Article
- Methodological issues in consciousness research: theory comparison, the role of empirical evidence, and a replication crisis.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is well known that in interdisciplinary consciousness studies there are various competing hypotheses about the neural correlate(s) of consciousness (NCCs). Much contemporary work is dedicated to determining which of these hypotheses is right (or the weaker claim is to be preferred). The prevalent working assumption is that one of the competing hypotheses is correct, and the remaining hypotheses misdescribe the phenomenon in some critical manner and their associated purported empirical evidence will eventually be explained away. In contrast to this, we propose that each hypothesis-simultaneously with its competitors-may be right and its associated evidence be genuine evidence of NCCs. To account for this, we develop the multiple generator hypothesis (MGH) based on a distinction between
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.