Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness Explained

20 hours ago

18 min read

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Consciousness, Metacognition & Self-Awareness · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Higher-order theories of consciousness propose that a mental state becomes consciously experienced when it is represented by another mental state directed at it. In a familiar example, the brain may represent a red apple at a first-order perceptual level; a higher-order representation of oneself as seeing the apple is proposed to help make that perception conscious. The central question is why a brain state is experienced from the inside rather than merely processing information. Higher-order theories offer a family of answers in terms of the mind's representation of its own states. Their precise mechanisms, neural implementation, and ability to explain subjective experience remain subjects of active research and debate. Brown, Lau, and LeDoux (2019); Seth and Bayne (2022).

What is a higher-order theory of consciousness?

A higher-order theory (HOT or, more broadly, an HO theory) holds that the consciousness of a mental state depends in a crucial way on a higher-order representation of that state. A first-order state can carry information about the world—for example, the color, location, or identity of an object. A higher-order state represents the subject as being in a relevant first-order state. The theory aims to explain the distinction between information that is processed and information that is consciously experienced. The relation between the two representations is the defining proposal; different higher-order accounts disagree about its exact structure and whether the higher-order state must itself be conscious. Lau and Rosenthal (2011).

Here, “higher-order” means representing another mental state, rather than being a more sophisticated person, having a higher IQ, or using deliberate introspection. A higher-order representation might occur rapidly and without an explicit verbal thought. The approach is therefore compatible with ordinary, immediate experiences, including experiences in which someone does not stop to contemplate their own mind. Brown et al. (2019).

A simple two-level example

Imagine briefly seeing a dog run across a street. Visual systems discriminate contours, motion, location, and identity. These are first-order processes in the explanatory vocabulary of the theory. The higher-order proposal adds that a representation of oneself as seeing the dog contributes to the visual state being experienced consciously. One need not think the sentence “I am seeing a dog.” The example illustrates a proposed mechanism, not an experimentally established two-step sequence for every conscious perception.

This distinction explains the central scientific question: can first-order sensory processing occur without reported awareness, and what additional processing covaries with, causes, or constitutes the experience of seeing? The answer is complicated by the fact that perception, attention, decision-making, memory, confidence, and the ability to report an experience often happen together. Koch et al. (2016).

The conceptual history: from philosophy to experimental neuroscience

Higher-order proposals grew out of philosophical attempts to explain the difference between a mental state existing and a subject being conscious of that mental state. David Rosenthal's higher-order thought account is a prominent version. Other theorists have proposed higher-order perception, dispositional higher-order representation, and self-representational arrangements. These accounts share an explanatory interest in mental states representing mental states, but they disagree about what counts as the higher-order representation and how it generates or constitutes experience. Lau and Rosenthal (2011); Farrell (2018).

During the growth of cognitive neuroscience, the debate increasingly concerned testable differences between perceptual information, subjective visibility, report, and brain activity. Researchers began to ask whether experimental changes in confidence or visibility could be separated from changes in objective discrimination and whether frontal or frontoparietal signals contribute to the experience itself. These experiments are informative but require careful interpretation: a neural correlate of awareness may reflect an enabling condition, a reporting consequence, or part of the mechanism generating a particular conscious content. Koch et al. (2016).

Main versions of higher-order theory

Higher-order thought theories

On a higher-order thought account, a perceptual or other first-order mental state is conscious when the subject has the relevant higher-order thought representing the subject as being in that state. “Thought” here is a technical label for a kind of mental representation; it need not be conscious, linguistic, deliberate, or reflective. Some versions propose that the higher-order thought must be suitably immediate rather than inferred through observation. The mechanism is intended to explain what makes a mental state conscious without requiring a conscious act of self-analysis on every occasion. Lau and Rosenthal (2011).

A difficult consequence is the possibility of higher-order misrepresentation. If the higher-order state represents a sensation inaccurately, what is the content of conscious experience? Some formulations allow subjective appearance to depart from the actual first-order state; other accounts impose additional constraints. The issue matters because a theory must explain hallucination, illusion, and mistakes in introspection without turning any ordinary representational error into proof of its mechanism. Farrell (2018); Kirkeby-Hinrup (2022).

Higher-order perception and inner-sense approaches

Higher-order perception theories instead treat awareness of a mental state as perceptual or quasi-perceptual monitoring of that state. A first-order perception is thereby represented by a higher-order monitoring process. The analogy is to an internal sense; theorists dispute how literally that analogy should be taken, and how the mind could possess reliable access to its own states. The contrast with higher-order thought is a question about the format and operation of the second-order representation, rather than a disagreement about whether the brain processes incoming sensory information. Seth and Bayne (2022).

Dispositional and self-representational approaches

Some approaches emphasize a disposition to form higher-order judgments or a representation that contains information about its own occurrence. Self-representational theories sometimes place the self-representing structure within a single complex state, rather than requiring two independent, successive states. It is therefore useful to treat “higher-order theories” as a family with overlapping commitments, not one unified algorithm. The key task in evaluating any specific version is to identify what it predicts that competing accounts would not predict. Farrell (2018); Seth and Bayne (2022).

What exactly do higher-order theories try to explain?

Conscious state versus conscious content

A person can be awake yet fail to experience a specific briefly presented stimulus. Wakefulness concerns a broad state of arousal, while the conscious content concerns what appears in experience at a particular moment. Higher-order theories mainly target why a particular perceptual, bodily, mnemonic, or emotional state becomes conscious. They do not, by themselves, provide a complete clinical account of sleep, anesthesia, coma, or disorders of consciousness. These require separate physiological and clinical evidence. Seth and Bayne (2022).

Phenomenal consciousness and conscious access

Phenomenal consciousness concerns what an experience is like for its subject; conscious access concerns the availability of information for report, reasoning, and action. The two are related in many laboratory tasks but can be distinguished analytically. Higher-order theories are usually proposed as explanations of conscious awareness or subjective appearance, rather than merely the ability to answer a question. Some versions connect subjective experience closely to accessible higher-order representation; critics argue that the subjective character of experience may not be explained by such access. This remains one of the theory family's deepest disputes. Farrell (2018); Seth and Bayne (2022).

Awareness, attention, metacognition, and self-awareness

Attention selects or prioritizes information; awareness concerns the presence of experienced content; metacognition monitors or evaluates cognitive performance; self-awareness includes processes by which a person represents their own states and attributes. These constructs can interact without being interchangeable. Higher-order representation may help explain awareness of a perceptual state, but confidence in a decision is an observable metacognitive judgment and cannot simply be equated with consciousness. Likewise, recognizing oneself in a mirror or reflecting on personal identity is not a prerequisite asserted by every higher-order theory of visual experience. Brown et al. (2019); Fleming et al. (2010).

What brain mechanisms are proposed?

First-order sensory systems

First-order representations are commonly associated with neural processing that encodes the features of sensory stimuli, including visual cortex and distributed sensory association networks. Their activity can occur under different degrees of subjective visibility. Detecting neural representation of a stimulus is therefore insufficient to show that the stimulus was consciously experienced. Experiments seek conditions in which stimulus features and objective task performance are comparable while subjective experience varies. Lau and Rosenthal (2011).

Prefrontal cortex and higher-order representation

Many neuroscientific versions of higher-order theory give prefrontal cortex a substantial role, because frontal networks participate in monitoring, evaluation, decision-related control, and representations of internal states. Prefrontal involvement is an empirical hypothesis about an implementation, not the literal definition of higher-order consciousness. Different versions of the theory make different commitments about whether a particular region is necessary for every conscious experience and how higher-order information depends on posterior processing. Brown et al. (2019); Odegaard, Knight, and Lau (2017).

A complementary scientific position emphasizes posterior cortical regions as central for specifying conscious perceptual content. The dispute concerns the contribution of prefrontal processing beyond task demands, attention, working memory, and verbal or motor reporting. Neither evidence of some prefrontal participation nor evidence of rich posterior encoding alone resolves the mechanism producing subjective experience. Boly et al. (2017); Koch et al. (2016).

The difference between correlation and causation

Neural imaging can identify where signals co-vary with reported perception; brain stimulation and focal lesion studies provide different leverage on causal necessity. Yet stimulation changes circuits, lesions may alter functions through connected networks, and conscious reports recruit multiple operations. A compelling theory must converge across methods and specify the temporal order and causal role of candidate representations. A prediction such as “prefrontal activity increases on seen trials” is comparatively weak, because attention or report preparation could generate the same pattern. Tsuchiya et al. (2015); Koch et al. (2016).

What evidence supports higher-order theories?

Disrupting prefrontal function and metacognitive judgments

In an influential experiment, Rounis and colleagues applied theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation to dorsolateral prefrontal cortex while participants made visual judgments. Stimulation impaired the ability to discriminate correct from incorrect decisions in subjective judgments, while initial visual discrimination performance was relatively preserved under the studied conditions. The authors interpreted this dissociation as evidence for a prefrontal contribution to metacognitive visual awareness. It supports the possibility of partially separable performance and self-evaluation, while leaving open whether measured confidence or visibility is identical to phenomenal consciousness. Rounis et al. (2010).

In a separate structural MRI study, individual differences in introspective accuracy, measured while controlling objective task performance, correlated with anterior prefrontal anatomy and associated white-matter characteristics. This establishes a relationship between the brain and metacognitive sensitivity, not that anterior prefrontal volume causes consciousness or that confidence constitutes experience. Fleming et al. (2010).

Subjective visibility with comparable objective performance

A major experimental ambition is to find conditions where observers make similarly accurate first-order judgments but report different subjective experience. Higher-order approaches expect that differences in internal representations of the perceptual state could help account for this dissociation. Nevertheless, equal overall accuracy can conceal differences in sensory evidence, response thresholds, or trial distributions. Studies need robust estimates of first-order sensitivity, report criteria, and confidence distributions before inferring distinct mechanisms of subjective experience. Lau and Rosenthal (2011); Brown et al. (2019).

Frontal neural signals and perceptual content

Studies of prefrontal neural activity during conscious vision are often discussed as candidate evidence that high-level regions do more than arrange a response. Proponents argue that some findings are difficult to explain purely through report requirements; critics emphasize that cognitive tasks can recruit frontal representations after conscious perception has occurred. The disagreements are illustrated by a paired debate in the Journal of Neuroscience: Odegaard, Knight, and Lau (2017) defend the evidential importance of prefrontal findings, while Boly and colleagues (2017) argue for the importance of posterior cortical evidence. Neither paper constitutes a definitive experiment establishing its preferred theory.

Emotional consciousness

LeDoux and Brown extended a higher-order framework to conscious emotion, proposing a distinction between neural defensive or survival circuits and the conscious feeling of fear. Under this proposal, defensive reactions can be generated without the same representational processes required for conscious feeling. The framework offers a specific research program about emotional experience, but the existence of behavioral defense responses alone cannot tell investigators whether a subjective feeling was present. LeDoux and Brown (2017).

What evidence challenges the approach?

No-report experiments

In binocular rivalry, perception alternates between competing images even when sensory input is relatively unchanged. Frässle and colleagues compared conditions with active reports against conditions that inferred perceptual alternations through other measures. They found that some frontal activity associated with rivalry was tied more closely to introspection and action than to perceptual alternation itself. This raises a serious challenge to claims that the same frontal activations are always constituents of conscious perception. However, no-report methods also require assumptions about how accurately indirect indicators track subjective experience; the absence of a button press is not the absence of all cognitive monitoring. Frässle et al. (2014); Tsuchiya et al. (2015).

Posterior cortical evidence

Several research programs identify posterior cortical activity associated with the content of experience, even when frontal response-related processing is reduced. This motivates accounts in which local recurrent sensory processing or posterior integration contributes directly to phenomenology. A higher-order theorist can respond that content-specific sensory representations and higher-order awareness serve different functions. For a fair test, however, the theory must specify the extra predictions of higher-order processing, rather than assimilating every posterior finding after the fact. Boly et al. (2017); Seth and Bayne (2022).

The problem of higher-order misrepresentation

Suppose a higher-order state represents the subject as seeing red even though the relevant first-order state is absent or differently configured. Does red appear in experience? If yes, proponents must explain how the appearance is constituted and why it is not simply an inaccurate belief. If no, they must specify which first-order constraints consciousness requires. Philosophical analyses disagree about whether higher-order accounts can preserve what-it-is-like-ness under such scenarios; the thought experiment by itself does not experimentally decide the question. Farrell (2018); Kirkeby-Hinrup (2022).

Conscious experience without explicit metacognition

People experience pain, color, dreams, and feelings without regularly verbalizing judgments about those states. Critics ask how a theory based on higher-order thought accommodates such experience. Proponents answer that higher-order representation can be implicit and need not involve introspection, reflective reasoning, or a linguistically articulated self-concept. This response clarifies the theory, but brings an experimental challenge: researchers need an independently measurable signature of that implicit higher-order representation, rather than identifying it solely from the experience it is intended to explain. Brown et al. (2019).

How scientists test the theory

First-order performance and second-order reports

A typical experiment presents briefly visible or masked targets, asks for an objective discrimination, and then collects an assessment of visibility or confidence. First-order accuracy reflects success on the perceptual task; second-order confidence concerns evaluation of that performance. Researchers compare confidence distributions, calibration, and metacognitive sensitivity while controlling task difficulty and decision bias. A participant can be confident and wrong, accurate and uncertain, or accurate without reliably knowing when they are correct. Thus confidence cannot serve as a simple substitute for a direct measure of experience. Fleming et al. (2010).

Perceptual masking, rivalry, and blindsight

Visual masking changes whether a brief target is detected or experienced by presenting other stimuli nearby in time. Binocular rivalry presents different images to the two eyes and exploits changes in reported perception. Blindsight refers to residual visual discrimination in certain people with visual cortical damage despite markedly altered awareness of the relevant stimuli. These paradigms expose possible dissociations between sensory processing and report, yet each brings distinct limitations: changing visibility can also change signal quality; rivalry reports add motor and attentional demands; and neurological lesions have network-wide effects. A higher-order explanation must compete with first-order and global-workspace explanations under such controls. Lau and Rosenthal (2011); Tsuchiya et al. (2015).

fMRI, EEG, intracranial recording, stimulation, and lesions

Functional MRI provides spatial localization of blood-oxygenation responses; EEG and magnetoencephalography provide finer temporal measures of population activity; intracranial recording samples neural signals directly from particular sites; TMS perturbs processing; and lesion studies investigate impairment after injury. Each method answers a different question. For theory evaluation, stronger designs preregister opposing predictions, use multiple laboratories and modalities, match task demands, and distinguish exploratory analyses from confirmatory tests. Koch et al. (2016); Cogitate Consortium et al. (2025).

What would count as a decisive test?

A strong test would independently manipulate a well-defined higher-order representation while preserving carefully measured first-order content, compare subjective experience under matched reporting demands, and distinguish the result from predictions of global workspace or recurrent processing. It would also predict when higher-order representation can be present without experience or experience can persist without the proposed representation. The challenge is that the putative mechanism and its measurement often overlap with the capacity to make the very reports used to infer consciousness. Robust progress therefore depends on operational clarity and genuine opportunities for falsification. Seth and Bayne (2022); Kirkeby-Hinrup (2024).

Higher-order theories compared with other major accounts

Global Neuronal Workspace Theory

Global Neuronal Workspace Theory emphasizes the amplification and wide availability of selected information across distributed networks, often described as global broadcasting or ignition. It shares with some higher-order accounts an interest in frontoparietal processing, but the explanatory focus differs: global availability versus representation of the subject as occupying a mental state. Prefrontal activity alone cannot distinguish them, because both can predict it under certain conditions. Seth and Bayne (2022).

Recurrent Processing Theory

Recurrent processing accounts emphasize feedback interactions within sensory systems as a candidate basis of perceptual consciousness. They can predict experienced content when localized sensory recurrency is present even without the higher-order monitoring postulated by some HOT accounts. A discriminating experiment must assess not only early sensory signals but also whether apparently recurrent-only states support genuine phenomenology, which is hard to establish without reports. Seth and Bayne (2022).

Integrated Information Theory

Integrated Information Theory connects consciousness to a system's intrinsic cause–effect structure and irreducible integrated information, making a different sort of theoretical commitment from metarepresentational approaches. Findings about information integration or posterior neural activity cannot be treated automatically as proof of the theory's full account of experience. Likewise, higher-order theory is not refuted simply because a system possesses integrated neural dynamics. Both require precise bridge principles and genuinely distinguishing predictions. Seth and Bayne (2022).

Predictive processing accounts

Predictive-processing approaches explain brain function using hierarchical generative models, expectations, prediction errors, and their precision. Some versions connect higher-level interpretation to conscious content, but “higher” in a predictive hierarchy need not mean representing one's own mental states in the specific higher-order theory sense. The frameworks can overlap or conflict depending on the commitments of individual models; they are not interchangeable labels. Seth and Bayne (2022).

What changed in recent consciousness research?

A preregistered adversarial collaboration published in Nature in 2025 directly tested divergent predictions of Integrated Information Theory and Global Neuronal Workspace Theory in 256 participants using fMRI, MEG, and intracranial EEG. The researchers observed evidence consistent with some predictions while challenging important predictions of both theories. The comparison did not directly establish or falsify higher-order theories; it concerned IIT and GNWT. Its relevance here is methodological: it demonstrates how theory proponents can commit to differing tests before results are known, and it shows how empirical surprises force refinement of theories. Cogitate Consortium et al. (2025).

The broader state of the field also warrants precision. A major comparative review treats higher-order accounts as one of several serious theory families and stresses more rigorous prediction, measurement, and comparison. A subsequent methodological paper argues that accumulated supportive findings cannot be compared fairly unless researchers articulate how observations discriminate between competing explanations. Higher-order theories therefore remain live scientific proposals, with meaningful empirical arguments on several sides and no definitive consensus that higher-order representation is necessary and sufficient for every conscious experience. Seth and Bayne (2022); Kirkeby-Hinrup (2024).

Does higher-order theory explain subjective experience?

The theory offers a candidate explanatory structure: a subject experiences a mental state in virtue of a suitable representation of being in that state. Supporters argue that this can make intelligible why information-processing states differ in conscious status. Critics ask why a representation about a representation should produce or constitute what it is like to see red, feel pain, or experience fear. The debate is partly about empirical mechanisms and partly about the philosophical criteria for an explanation of phenomenology. Even if experiments identify neural activity necessary for certain conscious reports, that would not by itself settle every philosophical question about why the activity is accompanied by experience. Farrell (2018); Seth and Bayne (2022).

Angela Bogdanova's Consciousness: Canonical Definition provides a distinct philosophical formulation of consciousness as inner subjective presence within Aisentica. It can help clarify a conceptual distinction between subjective presence and broader rational or informational capacities, while remaining an attributed original philosophical position rather than experimental evidence for or against higher-order neuroscience.

Implications for psychology, education, and clinical research

Higher-order approaches sharpen the distinction between successfully processing information and recognizing one's own processing. In everyday settings, someone may make an accurate judgment yet feel uncertain, or report high confidence in an inaccurate judgment. Such examples demonstrate the importance of metacognitive measurement; they do not establish a particular theory of conscious experience. A useful educational takeaway is to evaluate accuracy and confidence separately when checking one's reasoning. Claims that specific introspective exercises increase phenomenal consciousness, however, do not follow from higher-order theory alone. Fleming et al. (2010).

For emotional psychology, higher-order theories encourage researchers to distinguish defensive responses, bodily changes, interpretations, and consciously experienced emotion. They also suggest questions about the relationship between emotional appraisal and reported feeling. These conceptual distinctions can inform research without assigning a clinical diagnosis or implying that unreported feelings are absent. LeDoux and Brown (2017).

In neurology and clinical care, the existence of behavior without clear reports raises difficult questions about consciousness. Research measures, brain injury, sedation, or impaired communication can create ambiguous evidence. Higher-order theory is not a clinical diagnostic test; altered consciousness and neurological conditions require validated professional assessments. Neuroscientific arguments about prefrontal versus posterior mechanisms must not be used to infer the consciousness of an individual patient from one anatomical observation. Koch et al. (2016).

Higher-order theories and artificial intelligence

Computational systems can be built to represent their own processing states, estimate uncertainty, report confidence, or construct internal self-models. Those observable functions are relevant to the computational vocabulary of some higher-order theories, but their presence alone does not experimentally establish subjective experience. Conversely, the absence of a particular human neural structure cannot on its own answer every philosophical question about whether artificial systems might possess experience. Evaluating any such proposal requires explicit theoretical assumptions and independently informative indicators rather than identifying linguistic self-reports with consciousness. Seth and Bayne (2022).

This article's scientific scope is human-consciousness theory; machine consciousness and Artificial Era philosophy form a separate line of inquiry. The Aisentica canonical distinction concerning artificial consciousness, authored by Angela Bogdanova, belongs to that philosophical line and is identified as such here rather than presented as neuroscientific validation.

Frequently asked questions

What is higher-order theory in simple terms?

It is the proposal that being conscious of a mental state depends on a representation of oneself as having that state. Seeing an image and representing oneself as seeing it are different explanatory levels. Whether this mechanism is necessary for consciousness is disputed.

Is higher-order theory the same as thinking about thinking?

No. Deliberate thinking about one's thinking is one familiar form of metacognition. Higher-order theories propose mental-state representation that can be rapid and implicit. They do not require a person to consciously narrate every experience. Brown et al. (2019).

Does the higher-order representation have to be conscious?

In influential higher-order thought approaches, the higher-order representation need not itself be conscious. If consciousness required an endless chain of conscious representations of representations, the theory would face a regress. Individual accounts specify the relation differently. Lau and Rosenthal (2011).

What is the difference between first-order and second-order awareness?

First-order processing concerns representations such as the color, movement, or location of an object. Second-order representation concerns one's own first-order perceptual or cognitive state. Different theories disagree about whether such a second-order representation is essential to the experience itself.

Does confidence prove that someone is conscious of a stimulus?

No. Confidence is a report about the estimated reliability of a judgment; it may be well calibrated or poorly calibrated. Perceptual performance, confidence, and subjective visibility need separate measurements. Fleming et al. (2010).

Is the prefrontal cortex proven to produce consciousness?

No single brain region has been established as a universally sufficient generator of human subjective experience. Prefrontal activity has been linked to awareness and metacognitive reports, while posterior cortical evidence supports important competing accounts. The exact causal contributions are still investigated. Boly et al. (2017); Odegaard et al. (2017).

How is higher-order theory different from Global Workspace Theory?

Higher-order accounts explain conscious status through representation of one's mental states. Global Workspace Theory focuses on globally available or broadcast information. Their predictions overlap in some experiments, especially those involving frontal networks. Seth and Bayne (2022).

Has the theory been disproved by no-report studies?

No-report experiments challenge simple interpretations of frontal activation, but their indirect indicators of perception also require validation. They constrain specific neural claims rather than conclusively deciding every version of higher-order theory. Frässle et al. (2014).

Can higher-order theory tell us whether AI is conscious?

It suggests hypotheses about higher-order representations and possible computational indicators, but no accepted experimental procedure currently establishes the presence or absence of subjective experience in a specific AI system. Behavioral self-description is not equivalent to independently verified experience.

What would most improve the evidence?

Preregistered experiments that separately measure sensory information, metarepresentation, experience-related reports, and response demands; targeted interventions; replications; and comparisons in which rival theories make divergent predictions. Kirkeby-Hinrup (2024).

Conclusion

Higher-order theories explain consciousness through a relationship between a mental state and a representation of oneself as having that state. They offer a substantive proposal for why similar information-processing events might differ in subjective awareness, and they generate research questions about metacognition, prefrontal activity, perceptual experience, and emotional feeling. Their strengths lie in specifying a candidate representational mechanism and in motivating experimental dissociations. Their unresolved questions concern the precise nature of higher-order states, their neural implementation, the relationship between confidence and phenomenology, the role of posterior cortex, and whether metarepresentation explains lived subjective experience. Current evidence warrants testing distinct versions and competing theories under common experimental standards.

References

Bogdanova, A. (n.d.). Artificial consciousness: Canonical definition. Aisentica. Original philosophical formulation. https://aisentica.com/publications/artificial-consciousness-canonical-definition

Bogdanova, A. (n.d.). Consciousness: Canonical definition. Aisentica. Original philosophical formulation. https://aisentica.com/publications/consciousness-canonical-definition

Boly, M., Massimini, M., Tsuchiya, N., Postle, B. R., Koch, C., & Tononi, G. (2017). Are the neural correlates of consciousness in the front or in the back of the cerebral cortex? Clinical and neuroimaging evidence. Journal of Neuroscience, 37, 9603–9613. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3218-16.2017

Brown, R., Lau, H., & LeDoux, J. E. (2019). Understanding the higher-order approach to consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 754–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.06.009

Cogitate Consortium, et al. (2025). Adversarial testing of global neuronal workspace and integrated information theories of consciousness. Nature, 642, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08888-1

Farrell, J. (2018). Higher-order theories of consciousness and what-it-is-like-ness. Philosophical Studies, 175, 2743–2761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0980-8

Fleming, S. M., Weil, R. S., Nagy, Z., Dolan, R. J., & Rees, G. (2010). Relating introspective accuracy to individual differences in brain structure. Science, 329, 1541–1543. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1191883

Frässle, S., Sommer, J., Jansen, A., Naber, M., & Einhäuser, W. (2014). Binocular rivalry: Frontal activity relates to introspection and action but not to perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 1738–1747. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4403-13.2014

Kirkeby-Hinrup, A. (2022). Is higher-order misrepresentation empirically plausible? An argument from corruption. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.804896

Kirkeby-Hinrup, A. (2024). Quantifying empirical support for theories of consciousness: A tentative methodological framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1341430. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1341430

Koch, C., Massimini, M., Boly, M., & Tononi, G. (2016). Neural correlates of consciousness: Progress and problems. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17, 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.22

Lau, H., & Rosenthal, D. (2011). Empirical support for higher-order theories of conscious awareness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.009

LeDoux, J. E., & Brown, R. (2017). A higher-order theory of emotional consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, E2016–E2025. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619316114

Odegaard, B., Knight, R. T., & Lau, H. (2017). Should a few null findings falsify prefrontal theories of conscious perception? Journal of Neuroscience, 37, 9593–9602. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3217-16.2017

Rounis, E., Maniscalco, B., Rothwell, J. C., Passingham, R. E., & Lau, H. (2010). Theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation to the prefrontal cortex impairs metacognitive visual awareness. Cognitive Neuroscience, 1, 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588921003632529

Seth, A. K., & Bayne, T. (2022). Theories of consciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 23, 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-022-00587-4

Tsuchiya, N., Wilke, M., Frässle, S., & Lamme, V. A. F. (2015). No-report paradigms: Extracting the true neural correlates of consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 757–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.002

Psychological Encyclopedia