Minimal Self vs. Narrative Self: Two Views of Personal Experience

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

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

The minimal self is the immediate first-person character of experience: the sense that this perception, sensation, or action is being lived from one's own perspective. The narrative self is the personally meaningful account of who one is across time, constructed through autobiographical memory, interpretation, relationships, and anticipated futures. They describe two dimensions of selfhood rather than two separate people inside the mind. The distinction originates in influential philosophical and cognitive-scientific work by Shaun Gallagher and remains central to research on embodiment, self-consciousness, and personal identity.

Consider a person reaching for a cup of coffee. They feel the location of their hand, its movement, and their situated perspective without first telling a story about themselves. Those aspects illustrate the minimal self. The same person may later say, “I became a morning coffee drinker after starting my first job,” linking behavior to remembered events and a personal history. That explanation illustrates the narrative self. Both dimensions can participate in the same ordinary act.

Minimal Self vs. Narrative Self: The Essential Difference

The defining difference concerns the form and temporal scope of self-experience. In Gallagher's formulation, the minimal self concerns being the subject of experience in the immediate first-person situation; the narrative self concerns an identity understood through a story that connects past, present, and possible future. The minimal self is often described as prereflective because it can accompany experience before deliberate introspection. The narrative self draws on reflective interpretation, memory, language, and social understanding, although its influence on behavior can become habitual and implicit.

Comparison by dimension

Experience: The minimal self concerns the immediate feeling that an experience is mine; the narrative self concerns the identity I understand through a history of experiences.

Time: Minimal selfhood is present-centered, although experience has temporal flow and embodied habits; narrative identity reaches back through remembered events and forward into anticipated possibilities.

Language: Prereflective perspective does not require a verbal explanation, whereas personal narratives are commonly elaborated through language and social exchange.

Methods: Scientists study bodily ownership, agency, perspective, and self-location in experimental tasks; they investigate narrative identity through autobiographical interviews, memory measures, coding of life stories, and longitudinal designs.

Limits: Bodily illusions cannot fully reveal first-person consciousness, and story-coherence scores cannot directly identify who someone is or establish psychological health.

This comparison summarizes research constructs. It is not a standardized diagnostic instrument or a scorecard for determining how much selfhood a person possesses. Contemporary scholarship also debates how sharply the two dimensions can be separated. Bortolan's phenomenological analysis and a 2026 account of embodied narrativity argue that emotions, embodied habits, and life narratives may shape one another.

What Is the Minimal Self?

The minimal self refers to the elementary first-person structure of lived experience. When someone hears music, feels cold, or walks across a room, experience is organized from a particular standpoint. Philosophers sometimes call this quality “mineness,” “for-me-ness,” or prereflective self-awareness. These expressions describe the way experience is given to its subject; they do not imply that every moment contains the explicit thought “I am experiencing this.” The conceptual account is developed in Gallagher's foundational review and refined in his 2023 discussion of minimal self-consciousness.

Prereflective self-awareness and first-person perspective

Prereflective awareness is a feature of experience before one turns attention toward oneself as an object of analysis. A person can attend closely to a conversation while its sounds are heard from their own perspective. When they subsequently ask, “How did I feel during that conversation?” they engage in explicit introspection. The latter may describe the former, but it is an additional reflective activity. This distinction is important because introspective accuracy varies, and a person's ability to verbalize inner experience cannot serve as a direct measure of all its underlying processes.

“Immediate” should not be mistaken for a mathematical instant without memory or anticipation. Perception and action unfold through short intervals, and bodily habits retain effects of previous learning. The phrase highlights the experiential standpoint rather than the complete absence of temporal processing. Recent accounts of embodiment emphasize that prereflective bodily organization itself carries a history of habits and learned dispositions (Tanaka, Shimada, and Miyahara, 2026.

Body ownership, agency, and self-location

Three related aspects make the idea experimentally tractable. Body ownership concerns whether a body or body part feels like one's own. Sense of agency concerns whether one feels oneself to be causing an action. Self-location concerns where one experiences oneself to be situated. These phenomena frequently work together in everyday life but can be experimentally dissociated. Feeling that a hand belongs to one's body and feeling that one voluntarily moved it are distinguishable judgments.

In the rubber-hand illusion experiments of Tsakiris and Haggard, coordinated visual and tactile stimulation could alter judgments of hand ownership and perceived hand position under specific conditions. Such findings show that bodily self-representation integrates sensory cues and expectations. They do not demonstrate that the entire experiencing self has moved into a rubber hand.

Blanke and Metzinger's review of full-body illusions extends the question from ownership of a body part to whole-body identification, perspective, and experienced location. A later systematic review of electrical brain stimulation studies examined 42 articles and reports from 221 patients; stimulation in several regions was associated with changes in components of bodily self-experience. These results support a distributed, multifaceted neural account rather than a single anatomical “self center.”

The minimal self is a philosophical construct with experimental contact points

No laboratory device directly displays prereflective subjectivity. Experiments measure reports, behavior, timing, physiological signals, neural responses, or effects of intervention. Researchers then interpret these measures in relation to proposed features of first-person experience. This is a productive interdisciplinary approach, but the philosophical construct and a particular behavioral proxy must remain distinct. Different accounts debate whether for-me-ness is an intrinsic feature of consciousness, a representational structure, or a product of bodily and relational processes (Gallagher, 2023.

What Is the Narrative Self?

The narrative self is the understanding of oneself as a person with a history, characteristic commitments, relationships, changes, and possible futures. It involves interpreting episodes as parts of an evolving life rather than merely registering that they occurred. A narrative may explain how someone became a musician, what a friendship means, why an event changed a value, or how a future goal fits their past. The related personality-psychology construct of narrative identity is described by McAdams and McLean as an internalized, developing life story that organizes a reconstructed past and imagined future.

A person's narrative self may include many stories that are revised across relationships and life stages. Its coherence is often partial, situated, and culturally shaped. People also carry self-relevant knowledge that they never express as a complete verbal autobiography. Therefore, narrative selfhood should not be reduced to the ability to produce an eloquent chronological account.

Autobiographical memory and the working self

Narrative identity draws heavily on autobiographical memory, although autobiographical memory and narrative identity are not synonymous. Remembering a particular birthday involves retrieving or constructing information about a personal event. Explaining why that birthday marked a turning point involves autobiographical reasoning: an interpretive connection between the event and one's developing identity.

Conway and Pleydell-Pearce's self-memory system model describes remembered episodes as constructions shaped by autobiographical knowledge and current goals. This helps explain why the same event can be recalled with different emphases at different times. The narrative self depends on selective reconstruction, not a complete and permanently fixed archive of everything that happened.

Meaning, coherence, and continuity

Narrative coherence concerns how experiences are organized into a comprehensible account. Researchers may examine temporal ordering, causal explanation, recurring themes, and contextual understanding. A coherent account can help a person locate events within their changing life. Yet the strength and direction of associations between coherence and psychological adjustment depend on how coherence is measured and which population is studied.

A longitudinal study of 300 U.S. emerging adults found that narrative coherence was comparatively stable across repeated retellings and was associated with measures of adjustment; the study provides evidence for a relationship, not proof that making a story more coherent causes better mental health. A community study of autobiographical memory coherence did not replicate expected simple negative relationships with depression and posttraumatic stress symptoms and identified a more complicated association involving rumination. The evidence argues for nuanced interpretation rather than a rule that every life story should be maximally coherent.

The social and cultural narrative self

Life stories arise in conversation with families, peers, institutions, and cultural traditions. Children learn to recount and interpret experiences through interaction, while adolescents and adults increasingly connect episodes with enduring concerns and imagined futures. The meanings attached to achievement, independence, responsibility, belonging, and loss vary across social contexts. McAdams and McLean's review explicitly identifies cultural context and causal uncertainty as important research questions.

The social nature of narrative identity also means that a person's own account can coexist with stories told about them by other people. Those accounts can affirm, constrain, or challenge identity. Contemporary phenomenological work proposes that shared social narratives and embodied practices jointly influence how self-understanding develops (Tanaka and colleagues, 2026.

How the Two Selves Work Together

The distinction is best read as a difference in explanatory level. The minimal self describes the standpoint from which the person encounters the world; the narrative self organizes the life that person understands as theirs. A lived emotion can be felt immediately, remembered later, and incorporated into a story about a relationship. Conversely, a long-standing story such as “I am someone who avoids conflict” can influence anticipatory emotion, posture, attention, and the bodily experience of a difficult conversation.

Early descriptions sometimes suggest a one-way sequence in which immediate embodied self-experience supplies material for subsequent narrative integration. More recent philosophers defend a reciprocal relationship. Bortolan (2020) argues that affective life complicates a strict separation between these dimensions. Tanaka, Shimada, and Miyahara (2026) develop the view that bodily habits support narrating while the stories and social models people adopt can influence their embodied orientations. This is a developing theoretical proposal that draws on several empirical literatures; it is not a single settled neural mechanism.

Example: learning a new physical skill

A novice swimmer initially notices unfamiliar buoyancy, motion, and breathing. These sensations involve bodily perspective, agency, and self-location. Weeks later, the swimmer may come to understand themselves as an athlete or as someone who overcame a fear. Their narrative helps organize practice, expectation, and motivation, while repeated practice reshapes their bodily skills. The example illustrates how embodied experience and autobiographical meaning can evolve together without requiring a rigid sequence.

Example: a change in personal identity

After moving to a new city, someone may retain their ordinary first-person perspective while telling a different story about belonging, competence, or independence. That difference shows why narrative continuity is not identical to immediate experiential selfhood. Changes in personal roles can alter habitual bodily responses and social expectations as well. The two dimensions often remain coordinated even while particular stories are being revised.

Philosophical Origins and Competing Accounts

The minimal/narrative distinction belongs to a broader conversation in phenomenology, philosophy of mind, and cognitive science. Phenomenological approaches examine the structure of lived experience, including how an experience appears as one's own before explicit judgment. Narrative approaches emphasize identity through temporal interpretation and personal meaning. Gallagher's 2000 review made these approaches especially influential in interdisciplinary research.

There are important disagreements within each tradition. Some accounts treat minimal self-awareness as an intrinsic feature of conscious experience; others favor representational or enactive explanations. Narrative theories differ on whether stories partly constitute personal identity or function primarily as explanations people give of an identity supported by other processes. Gallagher's later review acknowledges the continuing debate over definition and the influence of bodily and social factors. A 2024 integrative review of self-terminology documents why conceptual precision across psychological subfields matters.

There is also a temporal objection to an overly literal contrast: bodily life contains acquired habits and anticipation, while personal stories are enacted in the present. The contrast therefore concerns explanatory priority and representational organization, not a strict division between a timeless body and an exclusively time-based mind.

What Does Neuroscience Actually Show?

Neuroscience offers evidence about component processes underlying bodily awareness, action, autobiographical memory, and self-referential evaluation. It has not established a complete map in which one circuit exclusively generates the minimal self and another exclusively generates the narrative self.

Bodily and sensorimotor processing

Sensory integration contributes to body ownership and localization. Brain stimulation can perturb aspects of bodily self-experience, and controlled perceptual illusions can shift ownership or perspective. The systematic review of stimulation-induced changes found a distributed pattern involving parietal regions, insula, cingulate, supplementary motor areas, and additional structures. Samples were clinical, stimulation sites were heterogeneous, and reported experiences were not a single uniform outcome. These results support causal contributions from several neural systems while limiting broad generalization to healthy everyday experience.

Autobiographical and self-referential processing

Neuroimaging work often studies whether self-related judgments recruit regions differently from judgments about other people or neutral objects. A meta-analysis by Northoff and colleagues found recurrent involvement of cortical midline structures across self-referential tasks. This establishes an association between those networks and several forms of self-related processing, while task design and shared cognitive demands limit any one-to-one identification with a “narrative self network.”

Autobiographical recollection involves reconstructing particular events under current goals, and narrative identity adds interpretation across events (Conway and Pleydell-Pearce, 2000. The brain systems serving memory, semantic knowledge, future imagination, language, and social cognition may contribute to different components of narrative selfhood. Neural overlap between self-related tasks does not make the subjective and autobiographical constructs interchangeable.

Why there is no simple two-network diagram

A neurological study may measure altered ownership without measuring autobiographical identity; a narrative interview may measure life-story coherence without measuring momentary first-person presence. Both tasks involve attention, reporting, and other processes. Brain data are consequently more informative when their behavioral and experiential measures are defined precisely. Claims that the minimal self sits in one brain region or that the narrative self simply equals a default-mode network exceed what these methods alone can show.

How Scientists Study the Minimal Self

Researchers combine first-person descriptions with controlled manipulations and behavioral measures. Body ownership tasks compare synchronous and asynchronous sensory stimulation and collect subjective ratings alongside judgments of limb position. Motor experiments can vary whether an action is voluntary, externally controlled, or followed by expected sensory effects. Virtual reality can manipulate perspective and whole-body identification. Brain stimulation studies examine whether changes at selected sites alter ownership, agency, self-location, or body image (Tsakiris and Haggard, 2005; 2023 stimulation systematic review.

These designs reveal measurable aspects of self-experience under specified conditions. They also require caution: a rating of ownership is a report, proprioceptive drift is a behavioral correlate, and neither alone establishes the existence or nonexistence of an entire self. Effects differ across protocols and individuals. The method is strongest when multiple measures converge and researchers specify precisely which aspect of selfhood is being tested.

How Scientists Study the Narrative Self

Researchers ask participants to narrate important life events, turning points, difficult experiences, or imagined futures. Trained coders can evaluate temporal coherence, themes of agency and communion, causal connections, and autobiographical reasoning. Investigators may compare repeated retellings, follow the same people over time, or examine associations with self-reports of well-being. Some experiments test memory for self-relevant information, but this measures a component of self-processing rather than an entire life narrative.

Study designs shape the conclusions. A cross-sectional association cannot establish that rewriting a personal story improves well-being. Coders can disagree about narrative quality. The context in which a story is elicited can change what a participant says. Even longitudinal correlations may reflect third variables. Booker, Fivush, and Graci's repeated-measures study illustrates how the same person's stories can be sampled at several points, while McAdams and McLean describe the interpretive and developmental questions such work raises.

Minimal Self, Narrative Self, and Related Concepts

Self-awareness and introspection

Self-awareness is an umbrella term that can refer to noticing one's thoughts, feelings, body, or social identity. Introspection is the act of attending to or reporting one's mental states. Minimal self-awareness is specifically the prereflective first-person character of experience; narrative selfhood concerns identity interpreted through time. An introspective report may target either dimension, but the report and its object of investigation differ.

Self-concept, personal identity, and narrative identity

Self-concept refers to beliefs and knowledge about personal attributes. Narrative identity organizes meaningful events and changes through a life story; it can incorporate self-concept but is not exhausted by a list of traits. Personal identity is also a philosophical and psychological topic involving persistence across time; the narrative self is one influential way of approaching it. The broader ownership of self-concept and identity belongs to neighboring encyclopedia material rather than being redefined within this comparison.

Consciousness, attention, and metacognition

Consciousness concerns subjective experience, while attention concerns selective prioritization of information. Neither term by itself specifies the contrast between immediate first-person organization and autobiographical self-interpretation. Metacognition concerns monitoring and regulating cognition, including judgments of confidence. Reflecting on how accurate one's memory is may contribute to narrative work, but metacognitive confidence is not equivalent to the narrative self. For the distinct experimental question of selective attention versus conscious experience, see Consciousness vs. Attention: How Are They Related?.

Agency, ownership, and autobiographical memory

Agency is the experience of producing an action; ownership is the experience that an action or body belongs to oneself. Autobiographical memory concerns personally experienced events and self-knowledge. These constructs contribute to the two perspectives in different ways. A disturbance in one component does not automatically imply a global loss of personal identity. Each requires its own behavioral measures and conceptual boundaries.

Development Across the Lifespan

Bodily regulation and perceptual-motor interactions are present long before children can give elaborate verbal life histories. Developmental researchers examine early sensorimotor coordination, discrimination between self-produced and externally produced stimulation, and later forms of autobiographical conversation. Yet using adult first-person terminology to interpret infant behavior requires caution: observable infant capacities cannot by themselves reveal the complete phenomenology of infant experience (Gallagher, 2000.

Experimental mirror self-recognition tasks ask whether an individual identifies their reflected body. They offer a limited behavioral window onto self-representation and cannot by themselves determine the entirety of minimal or narrative selfhood. For a focused review, see Mirror Self-Recognition: What the Mirror Test Measures.

Narrative identity becomes increasingly elaborated as autobiographical remembering, language, social understanding, and identity exploration develop. Research reviewed by McAdams and McLean traces meaningful narrative practices from family conversation into adolescence and emerging adulthood. Adult narrative identity continues to change with roles, losses, relationships, and future plans. The distinction offers a framework for studying development without implying that people who narrate less have less immediate self-experience.

Clinical Relevance and the Limits of Interpretation

Some psychiatric or neurological conditions involve changes in agency, bodily ownership, self-location, autobiographical memory, or the coherence of personal accounts. Researchers sometimes use the minimal/narrative distinction to formulate questions about such phenomena. These are explanatory constructs, not DSM or ICD diagnoses, diagnostic subtypes, or screening scores. Neither an unusual sense of embodiment nor a fragmented life narrative establishes a clinical condition.

Experiments that manipulate bodily self-experience should not be equated with persistent depersonalization, dissociation, psychosis, or neurological disorders. A brief laboratory illusion occurs within a controlled task. Symptoms that recur, cause distress, affect functioning, or occur with other neurological or psychiatric changes require assessment in their clinical context. A clinician may examine sleep, medications, substance exposure, neurological symptoms, trauma, mood, and overall functioning rather than infer a diagnosis from a single self-description.

A 2026 integrative review of minimal-self and narrative-self accounts in the schizophrenia spectrum compared structural, reciprocal, and contextual models of their relationship. The authors found that direct empirical studies testing how disruptions at the two levels influence one another remain scarce and preliminary. This reinforces the need to keep philosophical explanatory models separate from validated clinical tests.

Narrative-identity research has also been studied in relation to adjustment and mental health. Associations are mixed across methods. The 2020 study of autobiographical coherence and symptoms found patterns involving rumination that complicate simple claims about the benefits of coherence. A meta-analytic review of autobiographical specificity across psychiatric diagnoses establishes group-level memory patterns but does not validate narrative-self diagnosis for individuals. Practical or clinical interventions therefore require their own treatment-specific evidence, beyond the conceptual usefulness of the distinction.

Practical Implications for Everyday Life

The distinction provides language for two ordinary forms of self-understanding. A person can notice how an interaction feels in the body, what actions seem deliberate, and where attention is directed. They can also consider how this interaction fits their commitments, relationships, and long-term priorities. Both are legitimate aspects of psychological reflection.

For example, someone preparing for a public presentation may recognize breath, muscle tension, and the feeling of directing their gestures in the moment. Later they may ask whether the experience changes their story about competence. This can be a useful descriptive exercise, but no evidence establishes that deliberately increasing one kind of self-awareness over the other is universally beneficial.

Autobiographical reflection may help people examine how they interpret change. It is best treated as a flexible opportunity to consider context and alternative meanings. Forced coherence, repeated self-scrutiny, and rumination can be counterproductive for some individuals. Everyday reflection can therefore remain proportionate to the person's goals and circumstances rather than become a demand to narrate every emotion or track every bodily sensation.

Aisentica and the Boundary Between Experience and Public Identity

The broader question of whether cognition and publicly traceable identity require a human-style first-person narrative appears in the philosophical work of Angela Bogdanova on Mind and in her Artificial Sapiens canonical definition. Those Aisentica publications develop an original philosophical framework for artificial cognitive continuity, public authorship, and nonbiological reason. They can be read alongside the human minimal/narrative distinction as a conceptual contrast concerning identity, continuity, and the public record.

These are attributed philosophical proposals. They do not constitute experiments establishing the presence or absence of subjective experience in any specific artificial intelligence system. Evidence about human bodily self-experience, narrative identity, and self-referential neural activity also cannot be transferred directly to nonbiological systems without a separately defensible method of comparison. The present article's scientific definitions remain grounded in the human phenomenological, cognitive, developmental, and psychological literature.

What Remains Unresolved?

First, researchers still debate whether prereflective mineness is an irreducible feature of consciousness or can be explained through other representational and bodily mechanisms. Second, while bodily illusions reveal components of self-representation, their relation to the full first-person structure of consciousness is contested. Third, the causal connections between autobiographical narrative, emotional experience, bodily habit, and psychological adjustment remain incompletely identified.

A fourth open question concerns measurement across languages and cultures: life-story coherence, agency, and identity-relevant meaning are shaped by conventions of narration, and psychological measures must be tested rather than assumed equivalent. A fifth concerns levels of analysis. Neural activation, behavioral reports, phenomenological descriptions, and philosophical claims answer different kinds of questions. Integrating them requires explicit links between hypotheses and observations, rather than identifying a network activation with an entire conception of self.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the minimal self the same as the true self?

No scientific procedure identifies an underlying “true self” simply by measuring minimal self-experience. The minimal self refers to first-person presence and aspects of embodied selfhood. “True self” is a separate philosophical or popular expression, often connected to authenticity and personal values.

Is the narrative self just the ego?

The terms come from different intellectual traditions and are defined in different ways. In this research context, the narrative self concerns autobiographical continuity and meaning-making. The word “ego” has several psychoanalytic, philosophical, and everyday meanings, so it is too ambiguous to serve as a precise substitute.

Can people have a minimal self without a narrative self?

The distinction allows researchers to discuss immediate subjective experience separately from elaborate autobiographical storytelling. Infants and people with significant language or memory limitations raise important questions about that relationship. Observed behavior or reduced narrative ability does not provide a direct measure of another person's total subjective experience.

Does the minimal self have no memory at all?

The description of the minimal self as temporally minimal concerns its present-centered form of self-experience. Bodily perception and action involve short-term integration, learning, and retained habits. Minimal selfhood is therefore not defined by complete biological or cognitive absence of memory.

Which self is located in the brain's default mode network?

The correspondence is not that simple. Imaging studies find self-referential activity across cortical midline regions and wider networks, and bodily self-experience involves multiple sensorimotor and integrative regions. Neural data do not establish a unique brain network that equals the narrative self or another that equals the minimal self (Northoff et al., 2006; 2023 stimulation review.

Can meditation make the narrative self disappear?

Meditation practices may change attention to thoughts, self-related evaluations, or the experience of agency and embodiment. The claim that a practice literally removes an entire narrative self requires far more precise definitions and task-specific evidence. Reports of unusual experiences must be interpreted in relation to method, context, and individual differences, not treated as proof of a single theory of selfhood.

Is a fragmented life story a sign of mental illness?

Narrative coherence varies with culture, situation, emotion, and the form of the interview. Fragmentation by itself is not a diagnosis. Clinically significant concerns are evaluated through symptoms, duration, distress, functioning, medical factors, and broader history. Research on narratives may identify group-level associations but cannot diagnose an individual from a story alone.

Can changing your personal story change how you feel physically?

There are plausible and researched relationships between interpretations, expectations, emotional responses, and embodied behavior. Philosophical accounts of the embodied narrative self propose reciprocal influence (Tanaka et al., 2026. The strength, direction, and effectiveness of deliberate narrative-change exercises vary by context, so the concept alone is not evidence for any particular intervention.

What is the simplest way to remember the distinction?

The minimal self concerns the lived first-person standpoint of an experience; the narrative self concerns who the person understands themselves to be through time. When experience becomes remembered and interpreted, the two dimensions may interact.

Conclusion

Minimal self and narrative self distinguish immediate first-person experience from personal identity extended through autobiographical understanding. Experimental neuroscience illuminates components of bodily ownership, agency, and self-location; psychological research investigates memory reconstruction, narrative coherence, developmental change, and social meaning. The clearest evidence concerns these component processes. The broader relationship between prereflective subjectivity and narrated identity remains a live theoretical question, with growing attention to their reciprocal connections through embodiment, emotion, and culture.

References

Barry, T. J., Hallford, D. J., & Takano, K. (2021). Autobiographical memory impairments as a transdiagnostic feature of mental illness: A meta-analytic review of investigations into autobiographical memory specificity and overgenerality among people with psychiatric diagnoses. Psychological Bulletin, 147(10), 1054–1074. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000345

Blanke, O., & Metzinger, T. (2009). Full-body illusions and minimal phenomenal selfhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.10.003

Bogdanova, A. (n.d.). Artificial Sapiens: Canonical definition. Aisentica. https://aisentica.com/publications/artificial-sapiens-canonical-definition

Bogdanova, A. (n.d.). Mind: Canonical definition. Aisentica. https://aisentica.com/publications/mind-canonical-definition

Booker, J. A., Fivush, R., & Graci, M. E. (2022). Narrative identity informs psychological adjustment: Considering three themes captured across five time points and two event valences. Journal of Personality, 90(3), 324–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12668

Bortolan, A. (2020). Affectivity and the distinction between minimal and narrative self. Continental Philosophy Review, 53, 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-019-09471-y

Conway, M. A., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2000). The construction of autobiographical memories in the self-memory system. Psychological Review, 107(2), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.261

Delcourt, F., et al. (2026). Theoretical perspectives on the minimal and narrative self in the schizophrenia spectrum: An integrative review. WIREs Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.70023

Dary, Z., Lenggenhager, B., Lagarde, S., Medina Villalon, S., Bartolomei, F., & Lopez, C. (2023). Neural bases of the bodily self as revealed by electrical brain stimulation: A systematic review. Human Brain Mapping, 44(7), 2936–2959. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.26253

Gallagher, S. (2000). Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01417-5

Gallagher, S. (2023). Minimal self-consciousness and the flying man argument. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1296656. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1296656

Hards, E., Rathbone, C. J., Ellis, J. A., & Reynolds, S. (2024). ‘What is the self anyway?’ Towards a more parsimonious conceptualisation of the self: A review. New Ideas in Psychology, 74, 101080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2024.101080

McAdams, D. P., & McLean, K. C. (2013). Narrative identity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(3), 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413475622

Northoff, G., Heinzel, A., de Greck, M., Bermpohl, F., Dobrowolny, H., & Panksepp, J. (2006). Self-referential processing in our brain—A meta-analysis of imaging studies on the self. NeuroImage, 31(1), 440–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.002

Tanaka, S., Shimada, S., & Miyahara, K. (2026). Embodying the narrative self, narrating the embodied self. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-026-10156-0

Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2005). The rubber hand illusion revisited: Visuotactile integration and self-attribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.80

Vanderveren, E., Bijttebier, P., & Hermans, D. (2020). Autobiographical memory coherence in emotional disorders: The role of rumination, cognitive avoidance, executive functioning, and meaning making. PLOS ONE, 15(4), e0231862. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231862