Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41739818›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Protocol for testing global neuronal workspace and integrated information theories of consciousness in non-human primates and mice.

Matilda Gibbons, Ethan G McBride, Raghuram Holenarasipura Venkatasubbaiah, Majid Khalili-Ardali, Jacqulyn R Kuyat, Samuel Gale, Vayle LaFehr, Nathan W Vogler, Mohammadali Kheirkhah Ravandi, Ming-Jiun Tsai and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. 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

21 authors.

Matilda GibbonsDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Ethan G McBrideAllen Institute, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Raghuram Holenarasipura VenkatasubbaiahDepartment of Psychology, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Majid Khalili-ArdaliCognitive Neuroimaging Unit, CEA, INSERM, Université Paris-Saclay, NeuroSpin Center, France.
Jacqulyn R KuyatAllen Institute, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Samuel GaleAllen Institute, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Vayle LaFehrAllen Institute, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Nathan W VoglerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Mohammadali Kheirkhah RavandiDepartment of Psychology, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Ming-Jiun TsaiDepartment of Psychology, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Corbett BennettAllen Institute, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Arjun SridharAllen Institute, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Benjamin HardcastleAllen Institute, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4819-5631
Hannah CabascoAllen Institute, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Christof KochAllen Institute, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6482-8067
Lionel NaccacheParis Brain Institute, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Giulio TononiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Shawn OlsenAllen Institute, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Maria Neimark GeffenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Theofanis I PanagiotaropoulosDepartment of Psychology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Yuri B SaalmannDepartment of Psychology, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8880-6698

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) is widely regarded as imperative to our understanding of consciousness. Although several scientific theories of consciousness make predictions about the NCC, they often differ in their level of detail, making direct comparison through experimental findings difficult. Here, we report an adversarial collaboration protocol in which unbiased experimentalists will test predictions formed by theory proponents of Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT) and Integrated Information Theory (IIT), concerning the location, timing and functional connectivity of the NCC. To enable cross-species comparisons, non-human primates (NHPs) and mice will view/listen to supra-threshold visual/auditory stimuli for variable durations in a go-nogo task that controls for report confounds, while we record with Neuropixels electrodes neuronal responses from visual, auditory, posterior parietal and/or prefrontal cortical areas. To causally test predictions about the timing and location, we will manipulate activity in prefrontal cortical regions using electrical stimulation in NHPs or optogenetic silencing in mice. This Study Protocol details the experimental design, analyses, divergent predictions, and the anticipated outcomes, along with their interpretation.

Identifiers

PMID41739818
PMCPMC12935206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.