AI 中文总结
本文比较全局神经元工作空间理论与动机性情绪心智模型，评估后者能否重现前者功能并提出新假设，分析25项研究后指出多数效应兼容，但MEM优势仍需预注册定量检验。
AI 中文摘要
全局神经元工作空间理论（GNWT）是访问意识方面最广泛发展的实证研究项目之一。相比之下，动机性情绪心智（MEM）模型提出了一种具身的、半层次联想记忆，其中表征选择、行动、模态特异性场的递归重建、内感受和效价形成一个单一的功能循环。本文评估了MEM机制能否重现GNWT所解释的功能，以及它们是否产生关于现象性质的额外假设。我们首先重构了GNWT的起源、机制核心、优势和局限性，然后介绍了MEM的起源、semblions架构以及FFS-RP循环。在比较分析中，我们区分了功能相似性与机制同一性和经验等价性。我们考察了25篇出版物：其中12篇是关于GNWT或其批评的经典研究，13篇是关于感知、内感受和情感的研究。对于每项研究，我们将GNWT的解释与可能的MEM重新解释并列对照。研究结果表明，大多数经典效应——包括阈值动力学、维持、递归、长程连接和信息的灵活使用——与两种理论都兼容。这种兼容性削弱了GNWT解释具有排他性的主张，但尚未为MEM提供理论特有的支持。MEM提出了一个更广泛的假设，整合了访问、模态特异性重建、身体状态、情感和行动；然而，其潜在的解释优势仍然是一个需要预注册定量检验的假设。我们提出了一系列旨在分离感觉重入、全局可用性、报告和内感受评估的干预措施。
英文摘要
Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT) is one of the most extensively developed empirical research programmes on access consciousness. By contrast, the Motivated Emotional Mind (MEM) model proposes an embodied, semi-hierarchical associative memory in which representational selection, action, recurrent reconstruction of modality-specific fields, interoception, and valence form a single functional cycle. This article assesses whether MEM mechanisms can reproduce the functions explained by GNWT and whether they yield additional hypotheses concerning phenomenal quality. We first reconstruct the origins, mechanistic core, strengths, and limitations of GNWT, and then present the origins of MEM, the architecture of semblions, and the FFS-RP cycle. In the comparative analysis, we distinguish functional similarity from mechanistic identity and empirical equivalence. We examine 25 publications: twelve canonical studies of GNWT or critiques thereof, and thirteen studies of perception, interoception, and affect. For each study, we juxtapose the GNWT interpretation with a possible MEM reinterpretation. The findings indicate that most classical effects - including threshold dynamics, maintenance, recurrence, long-range connectivity, and flexible use of information - are compatible with both theories. This compatibility weakens the claim that the GNWT interpretation is exclusive, but does not yet provide theory-specific support for MEM. MEM advances a broader hypothesis integrating access, modality-specific reconstruction, bodily state, affect, and action; its potential explanatory advantage nevertheless remains a hypothesis requiring preregistered quantitative tests. We propose a series of interventions designed to dissociate sensory re-entry, global availability, report, and interoceptive valuation.
