The Consciousness Theories Studies (ConTraSt) database: analyzing and comparing empirical studies of consciousness theories

A bird's-eye analysis of 412 experiments on the neuroscience of consciousness reveals that methodological choices alone can predict which of four leading theories a study will support, regardless of the actual findings. Most studies interpret their results after the fact rather than testing critical predictions in advance. This suggests that the field's theoretical commitments may be driven more by how experiments are designed than by the evidence itself. The authors provide an open-access website for further exploration of these trends.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Understanding how consciousness arises from neural activity remains one of the biggest challenges for neuroscience. Numerous theories have been proposed in recent years, each gaining independent empirical support. Currently, there is no comprehensive, quantitative and theory-neutral overview of the field that enables an evaluation of how theoretical frameworks interact with empirical research. We provide a bird’s eye view on studies that interpreted their findings in light of at least one of four leading neuroscientific theories of consciousness (N=412 experiments), asking how methodological choices of the researchers might affect the final conclusions. We found that supporting a specific theory can be predicted solely from methodological choices, irrespective of findings. Furthermore, most studies interpret their findings post-hoc, rather than a-priori testing critical predictions of the theories. Our results highlight challenges for the field and provide researchers with a unique, open-access website to further analyze trends in the neuroscience of consciousness.