Author(s) :

Andy Xu.

Volume/Issue :

Abstract :

The field of consciousness research has shifted over the past decade from identifying neural correlates of consciousness toward developing and testing theories. However, rather than converging on a single theory, the field has seen a parallel progression of competing theories. To identify the structural factors behind this trajectory, this systematic meta-review examines 22 review articles published between 2010 and 2025 identified from PubMed and PsycNet which propose, evaluate, or compare one or more theories of consciousness, primarily focusing on Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT), Integrated Information Theory (IIT), Higher-Order Theory (HOT), Predictive Processing (PP), Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR), and Recurrent Processing Theory (RPT). Three interconnected limitations were identified by comparison and critical analysis of the identified reviews: 1) definitional divergence, in which proponents of different theories embed their explanatory commitments directly into their definitions of consciousness; 2) context biased evaluation, in which theories are preferentially tested in experimental paradigms that reflect their own central commitments; and 3) the failure of integrative models to converge on a theory-independent model. Together, these factors help explain why empirical research has thus far produced theory-confirming rather than theory-discriminating evidence. Despite these challenges, the field shows signs of maturation: systematic and multi-theory reviews have become more common since 2020, and the introduction of adversarial collaboration represents a meaningful step toward bias-resistant theory evaluation. Future progress will require greater definitional transparency, increased use of theory-neutral experimental contexts, and broader adoption of preregistered, crosstheoretical research designs.