ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Psychol.
Sec. Consciousness Research
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1633907
This article is part of the Research TopicMethodological Issues in Consciousness Research- Volume IIIView all 3 articles
Methodological issues in consciousness research: theory comparison, the role of empirical evidence, and a replication crisis
Provisionally accepted
- 1Lund University, Lund, Sweden
- 2Aarhus Universitet Center for Funktionelt Integrativ Neurovidenskab, Aarhus, Denmark
- 3Aarhus Universitet Institut for Klinisk Medicin, Aarhus, Denmark
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Judging by publications and engagement, the study of consciousness is going well. Interdisciplinary ventures abound. Technology, methods, and paradigms for empirical investigations are continuously developed and refined. A large number of researchers work enthusiastically to develop their preferred theory of consciousness and bolster it with empirical support. In one sense, largely these endeavors have been successful, and a newcomer to consciousness studies now has the luxury of two dozen (or so) viable (i.e., well developed with at least some proposed empirical support) theories of consciousness to choose from. The question now is: Which one to choose? This is the conundrum: What is the right choice? The contemporary field of consciousness studies is still far from able to answer this question. Indeed, we have yet to get over the hurdle of even agreeing on the parameters for an answer. Disagreements on foundational issues, such as what a theory should explain, prevent this question from even getting off the ground. Furthermore, our troubles with answering this question are exacerbated because there are so many theories on offer. At the same time, the large number of plausible theories available makes answering this question more urgent. Consequently, in recent years, focus is increasingly shifting toward ways to assess and compare theories (Chis-Ciure, Melloni, & Northoff, 2024; Del Pin, Skóra, Sandberg, Overgaard, & Wierzchoń, 2021; Doerig, Schurger, & Herzog, 2020; Ellia & Chis-Ciure, 2022; Ferrante et al., 2023; Kirkeby-Hinrup, 2024a, 2024b; Kirkeby-Hinrup & Fazekas, 2021; Kozuch, 2024; Melloni, Mudrik, Pitts, & Koch, 2021; Mudrik et al., 2025; Overgaard & Kirkeby-Hinrup, 2021; Sattin et al., 2021; Schurger & Graziano, 2022; Signorelli, Szczotka, & Prentner, 2021; Yaron, Melloni, Pitts, & Mudrik, 2021, 2022). This shift in focus indicates that we, as a field, are becoming aware that our current trajectory—in which the number of theories keeps increasing—poses a challenge.
Keywords: Consciounes, Theory comparison, Theory Convergence, neural correlate of consciousness, NCC, Empirical evidence
Received: 23 May 2025; Accepted: 27 Aug 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Kirkeby-Hinrup, Stephens, Balogh Sjöstrand and Overgaard. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Asger Kirkeby-Hinrup, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.