Define motivation Compare and contrast early theories of motivation
Theories Studies (ConTraSt) database: analyzing and ...
Transcript of Theories Studies (ConTraSt) database: analyzing and ...
Yaron I.1, Melloni L.2,3, Pi�s M.4, and Mudrik L.1,5
Theories Studies (ConTraSt) database: analyzing and comparing empirical studies of consciousness theories
Introduc�on
References :1 Dehaene, S., & Naccache, L. (2001). Towards a cogni�ve neuroscience of consciousness: basic evidence and a workspace framework. Cogni�on, 79(1-2), 1-37.; 2 Lau, H., & Rosenthal, D. (2011). Empirical support for higher-order theories of conscious awareness. Trends in cogni�ve sciences, 15(8), 365-373.; 3
Lamme, V. A., Super, H., & Spekreijse, H. (1998). Feedforward, horizontal, and feedback processing in the visual cortex. Current opinion in neurobiology, 8(4), 529-535.; 4 Tononi, G. (2004). An informa�on integra�on theory of consciousness. BMC neuroscience, 5(1), 1-22.; 5 Breiman, L. (2001). Sta�s�cal modeling: The two cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author). Sta�s�cal science, 16(3), 199-231.
IIT4
Integrated Informa�on Theory
RPT3
Recurrent Processing Theory
HOT2
Higher-Order Theories
GNW1
Global NeuronalWorkspace
Informa�on Integra�onRecurrent ProcessingHigher Order
Representa�onSharing of Informa�onKey mechanism
PHI (Φ)Local synchroniza�onMetacogni�onIgni�on
Posterior Hot ZonePosterior areasPFCFronto-Parietal and anterior Temporal
areasSpa�al predic�ons
Early LatencyEarly LatencyLong LatencyLong LatencyTemporal predic�ons
Can we provide a neutral overview of the field?
Theories are not put to the test?
Why aren’t theories eliminated?
• Vast majority of studies confirming the theories rather than challenging them.
• Only 33% of studies are theory driven.
• Most studies post-hoc interpret their results as suppor�ng the theories.
Challenging at leastone theory
Not challengingany theory
Reviews are wri�en from the standpoint of specific theories
• The overall picture of findings in the field is highly heterogenous.• S�ll, the theories are backed by empirical data compa�ble with their predic�ons.
Spa�al findings (fMRI)
Temporal findings (EEG, iEEG, MEG)• Suppor�ve theory -driven experiments disambiguate some of the pa�erns.
Limited cross-talk between the theoriesIs the field frac�onated?
• Lack of cross-talk between the theories - Increase in support of one theory has no clear implica�ons for other theories.
Cumula�ve distribu�on of experiments through �meAll experiments Suppor�ng
each theoryChallengingeach theory
Diverse means to study consciousness
The outcome of studies can be predicted by methodological parameters• A random forest classifier5 learned the associa�ons between the parameters
and outcomes of N-1 experiments and predicted the outcome of an untrained experiment (leave one out strategy) with above chance accuracy.
State vs. Content
Measures
Popula�on
Report (All)
Measures
GNW RPT IIT HOT
GNW RPT IIT HOT
GNW RPT IIT HOT
GNW RPT IIT
Methods
The database includes 379 papers repor�ng 418 experiments interpre�ng their results in light of at least one of the theories. Each experiment was classified according to parameters of interest.
Distribu�on of papersthat underwent manual screening
1 Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel Aviv University; 2 Department of Neurology, New York University School of Medicine.; 3Department of Neuroscience, Max Planck Ins�tute for Empirical Aesthe�cs.4 Department of Psychology, Reed College; 5 School of Psychological Sciences, Tel Aviv University
• Most experiments in the field yield suppor�ve results, and rela�vely few studies try to test opposing predic�ons in a theory-driven manner.
• A highly-variable pa�ern of temporal and spa�al findings, that cannot be easily explained by any of the suggested frameworks for consciousness.
• The interpreta�on of a study can be predicted based on the methodological choices made by the researchers, hin�ng at possible methodological biases.
Conclusions
Report (Content only)
GNW RPT IIT HOT