In an effort to address the complex topic of human consciousness, the Cogitate Consortium conducted a study comparing the Global Neuronal Workspace Theory and Integrated Information Theory. Despite initial hopes for a resolution, the study faced criticism for not effectively testing the theories' predictions, leading to debates about the scientific rigor of Integrated Information Theory. Researchers employed various brain activity measurement techniques across multiple labs, but the results revealed that both theories had limitations and could not provide a definitive answer. An open letter from the 'IIT-Concerned' group criticized the study and the Integrated Information Theory, while some researchers appreciated the scale of the work despite its lack of conclusive outcomes. The study highlighted the ongoing challenge of evaluating consciousness theories and the difficulty in narrowing down the numerous existing theories in the field.

The Cogitate Consortium aimed to resolve disagreements between Global Neuronal Workspace Theory and Integrated Information Theory by conducting a collaborative study involving 267 volunteers across eight labs worldwide.

The study used video games to assess participants' conscious awareness while measuring brain activity with electrodes, fMRI, and magnetoencephalography, but both theories only partially predicted brain activity accurately.

Critics, including the 'IIT-Concerned' group, argued that the study did not adequately test the fundamental aspects of the theories, labeling Integrated Information Theory as pseudoscience, which sparked significant debate online.

Despite the criticism, some researchers, like Anil Seth, praised the study's scope and its efforts to identify the shortcomings of each theory, seeing value in the adversarial collaboration approach.

Reviewer Hakwan Lau and other experts noted the study's failure to precisely test the theories, suggesting that the experiment's predictions could have been derived from other consciousness theories, thus not effectively narrowing the field.

The study underscored the difficulty in uniting the scientific community around a single theory of consciousness, as it revealed the complexity and incomplete nature of current theories.

While the study did not reduce the number of consciousness theories or provide definitive answers, it highlighted the importance of adversarial collaboration in fostering scientific discourse and potential shifts in perspectives.