Consciousness Regained: Disentangling Mechanisms, Brain Systems, and Behavioral Responses

How consciousness (experience) arises from and relates to material brain processes (the "mind-body problem") has been pondered by thinkers for centuries, and is regarded as among the deepest unsolved problems in science, with wide-ranging theoretical, clinical, and ethical implications. Until the last few decades, this was largely seen as a philosophical topic, but not widely accepted in mainstream neuroscience. Since the 1980s, however, novel methods and theoretical advances have yielded remarkable results, opening up the field for scientific and clinical progress. Since a seminal paper by Crick and Koch (1998) claimed that a science of consciousness should first search for its neural correlates (NCC), a variety of correlates have been suggested, including both content-specific NCCs, determining particular phenomenal components within an experience, and the full NCC, the neural substrates supporting entire conscious experiences. In this review, we present recent progress on theoretical, experimental, and clinical issues. Specifically, we (1) review methodological advances that are important for dissociating conscious experience from related enabling and executive functions, (2) suggest how critically reconsidering the role of the frontal cortex may further delineate NCCs, (3) advocate the need for general, objective, brain-based measures of the capacity for consciousness that are independent of sensory processing and executive functions, and (4) show how animal studies can reveal population and network phenomena of relevance for understanding mechanisms of consciousness.European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation ProgrammeHermann and Lilly Schilling FoundationGerman Research FoundationCenter for Nanoscale Microscopy and Molecular Physiology of the BrainNational Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeSao Paulo Research FoundationJames S. McDonnell Foundation Scholar AwardEU Grant H2020-FETOPENCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchAzrieli Program in Brain, Mind and ConsciousnessFLAG-ERA JTC project CANONNorwegian Research CouncilNetherlands Organization for Scientific ResearchUniv Oslo, Inst Basal Med Sci, Div Physiol, Dept Mol Med, POB 1103 Blindern, N-0317 Oslo, NorwayUniv Wisconsin, Dept Neurol, Madison, WI 53705 USAUniv Wisconsin, Dept Psychiat, Madison, WI 53719 USAUniv Fed Sao Paulo, Inst Sci & Technol, BR-12231280 Sao Jose Dos Campos, SP, BrazilUniv Milan, Dept Biomed & Clin Sci Luigi Sacco, I-20157 Milan, ItalyFdn Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, Ist Ricovero & Cura Carattere Sci, I-20162 Milan, ItalyUniv Amsterdam, Swammerdam Inst Life Sci, Cognit & Syst Neurosci Grp, NL-1098 XH Amsterdam, NetherlandsUniv Amsterdam, Res Prior Program Brain & Cognit, NL-1098 XH Amsterdam, NetherlandsUniv Med Goettingen, Dept Cognit Neurol, D-37075 Gottingen, GermanyLeibniz Inst Primate Res, German Primate Ctr, D-37077 Gottingen, GermanyLeibniz Sci Campus Primate Cognit, D-37077 Gottingen, GermanyUniv Fed Sao Paulo, Inst Sci & Technol, BR-12231280 Sao Jose Dos Campos, SP, BrazilEuropean Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme: 720270German Research Foundation: WI 4046/1-1National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke: 1R03NS096379FAPESP: 2016/08263-9EU Grant H2020-FETOPEN: RIA 686764Web of Scienc

Exploring the neural correlates of dream phenomenology and altered states of consciousness during sleep

Do people routinely pre-activate the meaning and even the phonological form of upcoming words? The most acclaimed evidence for phonological prediction comes from a 2005 Nature Neuroscience publication by DeLong, Urbach and Kutas, who observed a graded modulation of electrical brain potentials (N400) to nouns and preceding articles by the probability that people use a word to continue the sentence fragment (‘cloze’). In our direct replication study spanning 9 laboratories (N=334), pre-registered replication-analyses and exploratory Bayes factor analyses successfully replicated the noun-results but, crucially, not the article-results. Pre-registered single-trial analyses also yielded a statistically significant effect for the nouns but not the articles. Exploratory Bayesian single-trial analyses showed that the article-effect may be non-zero but is likely far smaller than originally reported and too small to observe without very large sample sizes. Our results do not support the view that readers routinely pre-activate the phonological form of predictable words