A bibliometric evaluation of the impact of theories of consciousness in academia and on social media

ObjectiveNo current model of consciousness is univocally accepted on either theoretical or empirical grounds, and the need for a solid unifying framework is evident. Special attention has been given to the premise that self-organized criticality (SOC) is a fundamental property of neural system. SOC provides a competitive model to describe the physical mechanisms underlying spontaneous brain activity, and thus, critical dynamics were proposed as general gauges of information processing representing a strong candidate for a surrogate measure of consciousness. As SOC could be a neurodynamical framework, which may be able to bring together existing theories and experimental evidence, the purpose of this work was to provide a comprehensive overview of progress of research on SOC in association with consciousness.MethodsA comprehensive search of publications on consciousness and SOC published between 1998 and 2021 was conducted. The Web of Science database was searched, and annual number of publications and citations, type of articles, and applied methods were determined.ResultsA total of 71 publications were identified. The annual number of citations steadily increased over the years. Original articles comprised 50.7% and reviews/theoretical articles 43.6%. Sixteen studies reported on human data and in seven studies data were recorded in animals. Computational models were utilized in n = 12 studies. EcoG data were assessed in n = 4 articles, fMRI in n = 4 studies, and EEG/MEG in n = 10 studies. Notably, different analytical tools were applied in the EEG/MEG studies to assess a surrogate measure of criticality such as the detrended fluctuation analysis, the pair correlation function, parameters from the neuronal avalanche analysis and the spectral exponent.ConclusionRecent studies pointed out agreements of critical dynamics with the current most influencing theories in the field of consciousness research, the global workspace theory and the integrated information theory. Thus, the framework of SOC as a neurodynamical parameter for consciousness seems promising. However, identified experimental work was small in numbers, and a heterogeneity of applied analytical tools as a surrogate measure of criticality was observable, which limits the generalizability of findings.

Some colleagues have questioned about our recent joint statement (Fleming et al 2023), so I try to address them here, as well as to provide some background. I also discuss what I think really went wrong with the recent adversarial collaboration on testing theories of consciousness (ARC-Cogitate), which has in part led to the statement. In a previous open review I already discussed the scientific content of their recent preprint. Here I focus on the institutional context, from my own personal perspective, as someone familiar with both the project itself and several other related (ongoing) projects in the field. There are issues that concern more than the subfield of consciousness science alone; advocates of open science, cognitive neuroscience, and theories in neurobiology in general may also benefit from some awareness of these problems, as they may end up spreading to and reflecting badly on the broader scientific community - if we do not make an effort to address them together.

No abstract