ArticleNeuroscience of consciousness2026
A Rosetta Stone hypothesis for neurophenomenology: mathematical predictions from predictive processing.
Article in Neuroscience of consciousness, 2026. 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.
- Beyond the reducing valve: towards a computational neurophenomenology of altered states via deep neural networks.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Gradient-Free De Novo Learning.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Criticality of Consciousness: Excitatory-Inhibitory Balance and Dual Memory Systems in Active Inference.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Consciousness science faces the challenge of bridging first-person experience with third-person empirical measurements. Neurophenomenology aims to build such 'generative passages' connecting the content of experience with behavioural and neuroscientific data. However, the mathematical machinery for such bridges remains underdeveloped. Here we develop a Rosetta Stone hypothesis from predictive processing, where beliefs serve as a central hub connecting phenomenology, behaviour, and neural dynamics. This hinges on a central technical assumption that phenomenology is a function of beliefs. We pursue a conditional approach: if this assumption holds, then certain predictions mathematically follow. We derive predictions for subjective similarity judgements, cognitive metabolic cost, subjective cognitive effort, and time perception. We review the connection between beliefs and neural dynamics to complete the generative passage for neurophenomenology, omitting the connection between beliefs and behaviour as this is already well-documented elsewhere. Testing our predictions will inform the validity of the central assumption connecting beliefs and phenomenology, and advance the neurophenomenology research programme.
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.