Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42621183›Full record

ArticleiScience2026

Altered neural processing of evaluative feedback from presumed conscious AI.

Antje Peters, Merit Ohlsen, Jens Bölte, Su Arkun, Laura Brockhoff, Thomas Straube, Sebastian Schindler

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 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

7 authors.

Antje PetersInstitute for Medical Psychology and Systems Neuroscience, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Merit OhlsenInstitute for Medical Psychology and Systems Neuroscience, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Jens BölteOtto Creutzfeldt Center for Cognitive and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Muenster, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.
Su ArkunInstitute for Medical Psychology and Systems Neuroscience, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Laura BrockhoffInstitute for Medical Psychology and Systems Neuroscience, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Thomas StraubeInstitute for Medical Psychology and Systems Neuroscience, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Sebastian SchindlerInstitute for Medical Psychology and Systems Neuroscience, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interacting with artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly prominent in everyday life. Modern AI can produce intelligent, witty, and even sarcastic responses, leading people to assume AI is conscious. This raises the question whether AI is perceived as conscious, and how people respond to such machines behaviorally and neurally. This preregistered electroencephalogram (EEG) study investigated the processing of social evaluative feedback from a human and two putative AI algorithms differing in attributed consciousness. Participants (

Indexed as

EEG/ERPmachine consciousnessSocial evaluative feedbackvalence

Identifiers

PMID42621183
PMCPMC13486980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.