Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:10:28.460Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrative experiments require a shared theoretical and methodological basis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2024

Pietro Amerio Open the ORCID record for Pietro Amerio [Opens in a new window] ,
Nicolas Coucke Open the ORCID record for Nicolas Coucke [Opens in a new window]  and
Axel Cleeremans Open the ORCID record for Axel Cleeremans [Opens in a new window]
Pietro Amerio*
Affiliation:
Consciousness Cognition and Computation Group, Center for Research in Cognition & Neurosciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium pietro.amerio@ulb.be nicolas.coucke@ulb.be axel.cleeremans@ulb.be https://axc.ulb.be/
Nicolas Coucke
Affiliation:
Consciousness Cognition and Computation Group, Center for Research in Cognition & Neurosciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium pietro.amerio@ulb.be nicolas.coucke@ulb.be axel.cleeremans@ulb.be https://axc.ulb.be/ IRIDIA, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
Axel Cleeremans
Affiliation:
Consciousness Cognition and Computation Group, Center for Research in Cognition & Neurosciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium pietro.amerio@ulb.be nicolas.coucke@ulb.be axel.cleeremans@ulb.be https://axc.ulb.be/
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Creating an integrated design space can be successful only if researchers agree on how to define and measure a certain phenomenon of interest. Adversarial collaborations and mathematical modeling can aid in reaching the necessary level of agreement when researchers depart from different theoretical perspectives.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e34
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cleeremans, A. (2022). Theory as adversarial collaboration. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(4), 485–486. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01285-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Le Clec'H, G., Koechlin, E., Mueller, M., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., … Le Bihan, D. (1998). Imaging unconscious semantic priming. Nature, 395(6702), 597–600. https://doi.org/10.1038/26967CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, J.-R., & Dehaene, S. (2014). A model of subjective report and objective discrimination as categorical decisions in a vast representational space. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1641), 20130204. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melloni, L., Mudrik, L., Pitts, M., Bendtz, K., Ferrante, O., Gorska, U., … Tononi, G. (2023). An adversarial collaboration protocol for testing contrasting predictions of global neuronal workspace and integrated information theory. PLoS ONE, 18(2), e0268577. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268577CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melloni, L., Mudrik, L., Pitts, M., & Koch, C. (2021). Making the hard problem of consciousness easier. Science (New York, N.Y.), 372(6545), 911–912. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj3259CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Timmermans, B., & Cleeremans, A. (2015). How can we measure awareness? An overview of current methods. In Overgaard, M. (Ed.), Behavioral methods in consciousness research (pp. 21–46). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688890.003.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaron, I., Melloni, L., Pitts, M., & Mudrik, L. (2022). The ConTraSt database for analysing and comparing empirical studies of consciousness theories. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(4), 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01284-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed