Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42903191›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Direct input variables: rethinking the limits of the extended mind hypothesis within predictive processing.

Catalin Teoharie

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

1 author.

Catalin TeoharieFaculty of Philosophy, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predictive Processing theories and the Free Energy Principle (FEP) face a dilemma when addressing the problem raised by the Extended Mind Hypothesis (EMH): on the one hand, few can deny that some objects, such as phones, computers, or other people, have a disproportionate role in the reduction of free energy; hence, it is natural to accept that the mind is extended. On the other hand, this seems to go against the carefully built framework in which Markov blankets (MBs) create an evidentiary boundary between the brain and the external environment, thus rejecting the claim that the mind can be extended to external objects. One approach would be to allow for permeable MBs, where boundaries can move, hence allowing external objects to become part of the mind. I find these solutions to be unsatisfactory because they go against the FEP framework, and I propose a different solution instead: human agents have the possibility of using Direct Input Variables (DIVs), which involves directly using the results of other models without performing the statistical inference themselves. Reducing free energy can be achieved either by statistical inference performed by the brain or by using DIVs. The use of DIVs removes the need to accept the EMH, preserves the integrity of the FEP framework, and opens new questions regarding how DIVs can be integrated within the FEP framework.

Indexed as

active inferenceextended mindfree energyMarkov blanketpredictive processing

Identifiers

PMID42903191
PMCPMC13680224

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.