Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42205950›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Attribution of consciousness to non-human animals: insights from AI and multidimensional frameworks.

Salvatore G Chiarella, Matteo Laurenzi, Marianna D'Onofrio, Shaun Gallagher, Antonino Raffone

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

5 authors.

Salvatore G ChiarellaDepartment of International Humanities and Social Sciences, UNINT, Rome, Italy.
Matteo LaurenziDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Marianna D'OnofrioDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Shaun GallagherDepartment of Philosophy, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, United States.
Antonino RaffoneDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Folk attributions of consciousness to non-human systems often reveal what may be termed double bias. Within the standard distinction between phenomenal and access consciousness, non-human animals often receive low attributions of consciousness despite convergent behavioral and neurobiological evidence treated as relevant to subjective experience. By contrast, disembodied artificial intelligence (AI) systems such as large language models (LLMs) often receive elevated attributions of consciousness, sometimes even of phenomenological experience, despite lacking any sensory or bodily substrate. This asymmetry suggests that folk judgments of consciousness are shaped less by the intrinsic properties of biological or artificial systems than by the cue-weighting heuristics observers apply when evaluating them. We propose that access-like cues may function as gates to the recognition of phenomenological status, thereby biasing attributions. To address these asymmetries, we argue that multidimensional, non-hierarchical frameworks, such as Birch's model and the Pattern Theory of Self, can be repurposed as diagnostic tools for studying how different dimensions of evidence are weighted in attributional contexts. This profile-based approach replaces a ladder of human-like cognitive capacities with a landscape of attributional and evidential profiles across taxa and system types.

Indexed as

animal consciousnessartificial intelligenceattribution biasconsciousnessfolk psychologylarge language modelsmultidimensional frameworks

Identifiers

PMID42205950
PMCPMC13201446

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.