Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41937840›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Reappraising intuitions about consciousness.

Cheongil Kim, Sang Chul Chong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Cheongil KimGraduate Program in Cognitive Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sang Chul ChongGraduate Program in Cognitive Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific studies of consciousness derive their legitimacy from individuals' intuitions about the degree to which measured functions can be associated with consciousness. However, intuitions about consciousness are often regarded as inherently inaccurate and unreliable, as evidenced by cases that appear to reveal counterintuitive dissociations between consciousness and functions. Recent findings challenge this traditional interpretation, suggesting that such cases can be explained by partial awareness that aligns with our intuitions. In this article, we integrate these findings and argue that intuitions about consciousness are more accurate and reliable than previously assumed. Furthermore, by adopting the perspective that consciousness is a metacognitive model of internal representations, we propose that intuitions about consciousness are metacognitive models of the relationship between internal representations and functions. This functional reframing not only explains why intuitions about consciousness can be accurate and reliable but also facilitates systematic investigations by linking them to well-studied cognitive functions, such as confidence, target templates, attention modes, and awareness of absence.

Indexed as

consciousnessintuition about consciousnessmetacognitive modelpartial awarenessrelationship between consciousness and functions

Identifiers

PMID41937840
PMCPMC13046535

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.