Alain Morin

Levels of consciousness and self-awareness: A comparison and integration of various neurocognitive views ☆

Quite a few recent models are rapidly introducing new concepts describing different levels of consciousness. This situation is getting confusing because some theorists formulate their models without making reference to existing views, redundantly adding complexity to an already difficult problem. In this paper, I present and compare nine neurocognitive models to highlight points of convergence and divergence. Two aspects of consciousness seem especially important: perception of self in time and complexity of self-representations. To this I add frequency of self-focus, amount of self-related information, and accuracy of self-knowledge. Overall, I conclude that many novel concepts (e.g., reflective, primary, core, extended, recursive, and minimal consciousness) are useful in helping us distinguish between delicate variations in consciousness and in clarifying theoretical issues that have been intensely debated in the scientific literature--e.g., consciousness in relation to mirror self-recognition and language.

Right hemispheric self-awareness: a critical assessment.

In this commentary I evaluate the claim made by that since self-recognition results from right hemispheric activity, self-awareness too is likely to be produced by the activity of the same hemisphere. This reasoning is based on the assumption that self-recognition represents a valid operationalization of self-awareness; I present two views that challenge this rationale. Keenan et al. also support their claim with published evidence relating brain activity and self-awareness; I closely examine their analysis of one specific review of literature and conclude that it appears to be biased. Finally, recent research suggests that inner speech (which is associated with left hemispheric activity) is linked to self-awareness-an observation that further casts doubt on the existence of a right hemispheric self-awareness.

A Neurocognitive and Socioecological Model of Self-Awareness

In the past, researchers have focused mainly on the effects and consequences of self-awareness; however, they have neglected a more basic issue pertaining to the specific mechanisms that initiate and sustain self-perception. The author presents a model of self-awareness that proposes the existence of 3 sources of self-information. First, the social milieu includes early face-to-face interactions, self-relevant feedback, a social comparison mechanism that leads to perspective taking, and audiences. Second, contacts with objects and structures in the physical environment foster self-world differentiation in infants; this environment also contains self-focusing and reflecting stimuli, such as mirrors and video cameras. Third, the self can develop bodily awareness through proprioception and can reflect on itself using imagery and inner speech. Furthermore, self-awareness is mainly mediated by the prefrontal lobes. The author establishes various links among these different neurological, social, ecological, and cognitive elements of the model.

Self-Reflection and the Inner Voice: Activation of the Left Inferior Frontal Gyrus During Perceptual and Conceptual Self-Referential Thinking

Inner speech involvement in self-reflection was examined by reviewing 130 studies assessing brain activation during self-referential processing in key self-domains: agency, self-recognition, emotions, personality traits, autobiographical memory, and miscellaneous (e.g., prospection, judgments). The left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) has been shown to be reliably recruited during inner speech production. The percentage of studies reporting LIFG activity for each self-dimension was calculated. Fifty five percent of all studies reviewed indicated LIFG (and presumably inner speech) activity during self-reflection tasks; on average LIFG activation is observed 16% of the time during completion of non-self tasks (e.g., attention, perception). The highest LIFG activation rate was observed during retrieval of autobiographical information. The LIFG was significantly more recruited during conceptual tasks (e.g., prospection, traits) than during perceptual tasks (agency and self-recognition). This constitutes additional evidence supporting the idea of a participation of inner speech in self-related thinking.

Self-recognition, theory-of-mind, and self-awareness: What side are you on?

A fashionable view in comparative psychology states that primates possess self-awareness because they exhibit mirror self-recognition (MSR), which in turn makes it possible to infer mental states in others (“theory-of-mind”; ToM). In cognitive neuroscience, an increasingly popular position holds that the right hemisphere represents the centre of self-awareness because MSR and ToM tasks presumably increase activity in that hemisphere. These two claims are critically assessed here as follows: (1) MSR should not be equated with full-blown self-awareness, as it most probably only requires kinaesthetic self-knowledge and does not involve access to ones mental events; (2) ToM and self-awareness are fairly independent and should also not be taken as equivalent notions; (3) MSR and ToM tasks engage medial and left brain areas; (4) other self-awareness tasks besides MSR and ToM tasks (e.g., self-description, autobiography) mostly recruit medial and left brain areas; (5) and recent neuropsychological evidence implies that inner speech (produced by the left hemisphere) plays a significant role in self-referential activity. The main conclusions reached based on this analysis are that (a) organisms that display MSR most probably do not possess introspective self-awareness, and (b) self-related processes most likely engage a distributed network of brain regions situated in both hemispheres.

Inner Speech and Consciousness

Inner speech represents the activity of talking to oneself in silence. It can be assessed with questionnaires, sampling methods, and electromyographic recordings of articulatory movements. Inner speech has been linked to thought processes and self-awareness. Private speech (speech-for-self emitted aloud by children) serves an important self-regulatory function. The frequency of private speech follows an inverted-U relation with age, peaking at 3–4 years of age and disappearing at age 10. Social and inner speech share a common neurological basis: Brocas area. Dysfunctional self-talk is known to mediate many pathological conditions; negative self-verbalizations have a more significant debilitating impact than positive ones.

Editorial: Inner Experiences: Theory, Measurement, Frequency, Content, and Functions

It is safe to posit that human beings have been interested in their own inner mental experiences from the moment they became aware of them, arguably over 60,000 years ago (Leary, 2004). In sharp contrast, growth in the actual scientific examination of these inner experiences is remarkably recent (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi and Figurski, 1982; Klinger and Cox, 1987–1988; Goldstein and Kenen, 1988; Hurlburt, 1990). Inner speech, in particular, has been the focus of even more recent efforts (e.g., Morin et al., 2011; Brinthaupt and Dove, 2012; Hurlburt et al., 2013; Alderson-Day and Fernyhough, 2015; Alderson-Day et al., 2015). We present 14 articles that cover theoretical ideas as well as current research results pertaining to the measurement, frequency, content, and functions of inner experiences. In what follows we summarize some exciting key findings highlighted in this research topic.

Consciousness is more than wakefulness

Merkers definition of consciousness excludes self-reflective thought, making his proposal for decorticate consciousness not particularly ground-breaking. He suggests that brainstem sites are neglected in current theories of consciousness. This is so because broader definitions of consciousness are used. Split-brain data show that the cortex is important for full-blown consciousness; also, behaviors exhibited by hydranencephaly patients and decorticated rats do not seem to require reflective consciousness.

Toward a Glossary of Self-related Terms

Some scholars have noted that an impressive number of self-related terms have been gradually introduced in the scientific literature. Several of these terms are either ill-defined or synonymous, creating confusion, and redundancy. In an effort to minimize this problem, I present a novel and systematic way of looking at possible relations between several key self-terms. I also propose a tentative classification scheme of self-terms as follows: (1) basic terms related to the overall process of self-perception (e.g., self-awareness), (2) non self-terms that are importantly associated to some other self-terms (e.g., consciousness and Theory of Mind), (3) processes related to the executive self and involving agency, volition, and self-control (e.g., self-regulation), and (4) self-views, that is, the content and feelings about the self (e.g., self-esteem). Three additional categories not discussed in this paper are self-biases, reactions to the self, and interpersonal style. Arguably unambiguous definitions for some of the most important and frequently used self-terms are suggested. These are presented in tables meant for the reader to search for definitions as well as related terms.

The “self-awareness–anosognosia” paradox explained: How can one process be associated with activation of, and damage to, opposite sides of the brain?

ABSTRACT Healthy volunteers engaged in self-referential tasks such as reflecting on their personality traits exhibit mostly left lateralized brain activation, yet patients with lack of awareness of their deficit suffer from predominantly right hemisphere damage. How can the same basic process of self-awareness be associated with opposite sides of the brain? Anosognosia and self-awareness substantially differ on important dimensions and thus should not be equated. It is proposed that (1) anosognosia does not actually result from uniquely right hemisphere damage; (2) self-awareness and anosognosia do not constitute unitary concepts and encompass multiple other related processes, most likely associated with activity in distinct anatomical networks; and (3) impaired awareness of deficit is mostly caused by problems with self-monitoring, pre-/post-brain damage comparisons of performance, and episodic memory, and is more passive, unintentional, and about the body. Self-awareness produced by inviting participants to intentionally and actively think about more mental aspects of the self relies on judgements, inferential reasoning, imagination, and semantic memory. Consequently, the “self-awareness–anosognosia” paradox is only apparent. Furthermore, the claim that healthy self-awareness is located in the right hemisphere because anosognosia results from damage to this side of the brain must be fallacious.