Presence, flow, narrative absorption, immersion, transportation, and similar subjective phenomena are studied in many different disciplines, mostly in relation to mediated experiences . Moreover, since real, virtual, or fictional agents are often involved, concepts like identification and state empathy are often linked to engaging media use. Based on a scoping review that identified similarities in the wording of various questionnaire items conceived to measure different phenomena, we categorize items into the most relevant psychological aspects and use this categorization to propose an interdisciplinary systematization. Then, based on a framework of embodied predictive processing, we present a new cognitive model of presence-related phenomena for mediated and non-mediated experiences, integrating spatial and temporal aspects and also considering the role of fiction and media design. Key processes described within the model are: selective attention, enactment of intentions, and interoception. We claim that presence is the state of perceived successful agency of an embodied mind able to correctly enact its predictions. The difference between real-life and simulated experiences  lays in the different precision weighting of exteroceptive and interoceptive signals. They can be synthetized as:- presence: how do we fit in the  world?- social presence: how do we relate and respond to  others’ intentions?space andothers, two additional important elements that we discuss areattention andtime. Many people often refer to these kinds of experiences with metaphors such as “engaging,” “immersive,” or “absorbing,” but our theoretical investigation goes beyond the various linguistic expressions and investigates cognitive and affective commonalities and diversities among concepts and experiences.Moreover, in many cases, an additional goal of research is to describe experiences that grasp the attention for a relatively long time (narrative absorption) and that are considered to be particularly rewarding (flow). Therefore, besidespresence, social presence, andnarrative absorption, reconceptualizing them as spatiotemporal configurations of the subjective experience of an embodied cognitive agent. In brief, subjects experiencepresence when they are able to correctly and intuitively enact (i.e. without the involvement of reasoning) their implicit (predictive processing) and explicit (intentions) embodied predictions (Predictive processing (PP) is the framework of our model, grounded in a 4E conception of the mind: embodied, embedded in the social context, extended into the environment, and enactive (ictions .precision (a measure of the reliability of prediction errors and their relevance for updating the model generating predictions) attributed to the different layers of embodied predictions , literature, and video games.-It does not multiply theoretical entities  in order to account for the emergence of presence in relation to different media and situations.-It describes a hierarchical organization of psychological functions characterized by feedback loops, explicitly showing the connection between presence and similar phenomena that have been studied under different names .-It considers how the narrative organization of information influences presence and is retroactively influenced by it.-It considers the dynamics of attention when breaks in presence and narrative absorption occur.By bringing together expertise from different disciplines, we show, among other things, how research in literary theory and empirical aesthetics can help to understand social presence outside fictional contexts (e.g. presenting the role of narrative elements in activating the enactment of characters’ consciousness), and how research in psychology and on VR can help to understand narrative absorption with stories and fictional characters. To help readers follow this interdisciplinary dialogue, inBefore introducing our new model, we contextualize the topic under discussion within the various disciplines considered and outline areas of common interest . Then, wInternational Society for the Empirical Study of Literature (IGEL), and themeasurement guides provided by the International Society for Presence Research (ISPR). Looking at the overlap of questionnaire items is a good starting point to identify which aspects are intersubjectively acknowledged as central to psychological phenomena like spatial presence, social presence, and narrative absorption. Similarities between concepts are usually explored by looking at theoretical constructs  in relation to a world displayed in VR, where users can often interact with it, from presence in relation to narrative, which concerns the way a story is told and the imagined world it elicits. In other words, shall we distinguish immersion in a story world  from immAnother experiment comparing the sense of spatial presence elicited by different writing styles  sensorimotor relations. In other words, we continuously make predictions about fictive (imagined) inputs, even when interacting with real objects. The more counterfactual predictions we make, the more our perception feels vivid. In this light, fictive stimuli are less “real” because they elicitcounterfactually-poor predictions  others or following their actions. Noticing the existence of others, interacting with them, and responding to and understanding others’ mental states are all aspects informing social presence. Items associated with social presence often co-occur with spatial presence items and seem to entail spatial presence as the basis on top of which social presence can emerge. These conceptualizations interpret social presence as a form of spatial presence in co-participation. Indeed, spatial presence seems to be part of all the other phenomena considered, since its items often appear in questionnaires about flow experiences, narrative, and games. In the case of flow, consistently with the original theorization byThe review presented suggests a possible cross-disciplinary systematization of the various concepts . AttentiAccording to PP the brain continuously updates a model of the relations between the body and the space around it, generating predictions about the expected sensory input (probability) and trying to minimize the number of prediction errors. More specifically, our brain functioning can be explained with a hierarchical generative model that performs a Bayesian form of inference elicited by the available sensory data, generating sensorimotor hypotheses (predictions) about the most likely causes of the data.Predictions are mainly simulations of bodily states and include visceral/autonomic (interoceptive), motor (proprioceptive and vestibular), and sensory  information . Moreoveagency, which emerges from successfully embodied predictions about exteroceptive and interoceptive signals mediated by the sense of presence. Agency is functionally localized at a higher hierarchical level than presence, so that prediction errors related to presence influence the sense of agency, while predictions and prediction errors concerning agency do not intervene in the perception of a sense of presence. Seth and colleagues reverse the relation acknowledged by the majority of research, according to which agency is a subdimension of presence, thus located at a lower hierarchical level  and future-directed  intentions according to the moment in which the intention will be satisfied, i.e. now or in the future. This aspect is crucial in narrative, e.g. because the audience always makes distal predictions about the outcome of a story , the action itself is the condition of satisfaction, i.e. my intention to move my hand is satisfied if I can move my hand. When intentions are oriented towards external objects, they are satisfied by the overlap between the intentional disposition (prior intention) and the result of the action, i.e. my intention to take an apple is satisfied if I move my hand, and the hand grasps the apple. In addition, as emphasized bytory cf..Another difference in prior intentions was suggested by The Centre for Cognitive Sciences in Turin, Italy . Namely,This brief analysis of the characteristics of intentions suggests a possible structure of human intentionality that includes seven types of intentions organized on three levels:-Motor intentions coordinate the simplest motor actions (not directed towards an object), such as opening the hand or protruding the lips.-Proximal intentions are at the basis of actions directed towards states, objects, or agents in the surrounding environment. They may be private (“pick up the apple”), social (“take my sister’s hand”), or collaborative (“assemble an Ikea furniture”). These intentions are the result of the interaction between subjective needs and the surrounding physical and social environment.Private, Social, and Collaborative-Distal intentions are at the basis of our actions towards states, objects, and agents in possible worlds . These intentions may be private (“lose weight”), social (“going to watch a play at a theatre”), or collective (“start a family”). These intentions are the result of the interaction between subjective needs and the possible worlds opened to the subject by the culture of reference. Private, Social, and CollaborativeMotor intentions), situational , and volitional  guidance and control of action. In addition, they form an intentional cascade  and perception-action coupling (self vs. non-self) . That is, the more an agent is able to focus on their bodily experience, the more they are able to perceive their own agency and their own current goal-directed proximal intentions (P-intentions). The questionnaires’ items inquiring about someone’s agency usually investigate core presence, namely those items about the possibility of action. The third type of spatial presence that emerged isextended presence, an agent’s evaluation of the significance of the current experience (self in relation to the present situation). That is, the more an experience is coherent with an agent’s future goals (D-intentions), the more the agent is feeling present in it. Some of the questionnaires’ items inquiring about the sense of agency investigate extended presence, namely those items about the control of medium/content and the fluency of media use, because these aspects involve the ability to predict possible actions. Often, this presupposes a familiarity with the medium/content  . That isn-self) . The seccontent  and its Similarly, the “sense of challenge” characteristic of flow experiences is strictly related to extended presence, since it depends both on: (i) the balance between challenge and skills at stake in the experience – i.e. the ability to predict possible actions and outcomes that minimize the amount of free-energy – and (ii) the goals of an agent. For instance, (i) if a game is too difficult or a book is in a foreign language that I do not know well, extended presence and flow are limited; if a game is too easy or a book is too simple, I do not feel challenged. If (ii) the genre of a videogame/book is not coherent with my goals – e.g. it is a shooter game, not the desired platform game; it is a fantasy book, not the desired crime novel – I perceive the experience as not relevant for my intentions and goals (prediction error).When an agent is learning an action (e.g. to drive a car or to speak a new language), the propositionally formatted content of the action is matched consciously with the embodied formatted contents to minimize the level of free-energy. For example the P-intention “Adjust the seat in regards to the pedals” within the D-intention “Learn to drive a car” is initially associated with an embodied representation including : (i) a hRizzolatti and colleagues defined “peripersonal space” (PPS) as the space immediately around the body . Recent Taken together these studies suggest that intentions, through PPS, filter the representation of the potential motor acts afforded by visible objects, enabling their identification as potential targets for one’s own actions or others’ actions . As suggThe boundaries of PPS can also be extended by external tools and other individuals: “technologies, used to push our action possibilities beyond the standard limits of our physical body, plastically reshape PPS representations… At the same time, it is also possible that emotional and social factors emerging from face-to-face interaction with others in turn modulate PPS neurons’ ability to map the space around the others into one’s own PPS” :-through the body in a non-mediated way;-as first-order mediation: through a proximal physical or symbolic tool  to exert an action upon an object;-as second-order mediation: through a proximal physical or symbolic tool  that controls one or more distal ones  to exert an action upon an external object (e.g. using a gamepad to control an avatar in a video game) or a mental object (e.g. giving sense to a narrative or solving a thought experiment).precision) in a way that minimizes uncertainty during the mediated action. In other words, the second PPS centred on the external tool competes with the one centred on the body to orient action and perception. Namely, when the externally-centred PPS becomes the most relevant one, it shifts the body-centred space to the one surrounding the external/symbolic tool. From a phenomenological viewpoint, the agent is now present in the external space and can act in it intuitively.The way in which embodied predictions are enacted has different effects on an agent’s sense of presence. With a successfully predicted first-order mediated action the proximal tool extends the PPS of the acting subject. In other words, the acquisition of a motor skill related to the use of a proximal tool extends the body model used to define the near and far space. From a neuropsychological viewpoint, the tool extends the near-space until the tip of the tool. From a phenomenological viewpoint, instead, the tool is now “incorporated” by the agent, who can use it intuitively as they use their hands and fingers, thus being able to feel spatially present while using it. A successfully predicted second-order mediated action produces an additional body simulation centred on the external tool. Second-order mediated actions are based on the simultaneous handling of two different body models – one centred on the body and a second one centred on the external tool – that are weighted  is a first-order mediated action that, when successfully predicted, can enable the use of words to express and communicate inner states, extending the interoceptive accuracy of an agent. When speaking a mastered language and interacting with others using such language, an agent feels a stronger sense of agency and is able to better perceive, express, and interpret interoceptive stimuli: the agent feels present because the correct prediction of the inner states increases the stability of the modelling of the near-body space. On the other hand, reading fiction is a second-order mediated action in which an agent uses language  to enact a character’s action in the fictional world  the nar and feelprobability design of the novel  and using it to make accurate predictions of what a character will do or feel ; the second one is of the kind “to strategically control the avatar in order to succeed in the game”, or “to understand the character’s intentions” . The latter happens by progressively (re)constructing theor feel . Throughenculturated predictive processing , but in different ways. Sensory selective attention can operate either in a reflexive automatic way, when elicited by environmental stimuli (exogenous attention), or as part of an intentional goal-directed action (endogenous attention) (focused attention). Depending on the kind of activity, these processes can extend over a relatively long period of time (sustained attention). Attention, perception, prediction, and enactment of intentions enable the emergence of presence, which in turn (feedback loop) can intensify the focus of attention (cf.ention) . In the tion cf.. This inextended presence because it is not coherent neither with the real-world model – and the predictions based on it (M- and P-intentions) – nor with the predictions made to complete the task in the game. However, such a break intensifies and directs exogenous sensory selective attention, because the disruption of the laws of physics is a prediction error that compels the agent to gather more sensory data and make new predictions to explain away the errors in their embodied simulation. In this situation, despite the break in extended presence, it can be that proto and core presence are not disrupted, for instance, if the act of grasping and holding the cup is coherent with M- and P-intentions and the floating of the cup can have some magical or technological explanation that is coherent within the game. This would be a case of a minor break in (extended) presence, causing exogenous sensory selective attention to partly shift toward the element that caused the prediction error – the floating cup – while endogenous (voluntary) sensory selective attention remains focused on completing the task of moving the object as part of the game (D-intentions). The focus of attention onextended presence can relativize prediction errors (assigning lower precision to them), consequently minimizing breaks incore presence  to the use of the controller (M- and P-intentions), whose glitch the agent wants to figure out. In contrast to the previous example, this is also a major break inextended presence – a phenomenon of broader scope, entailingcore presence – since the prediction errors concerning M- and P-intentions cannot be explained away as part of the game mechanics. A more extreme case of a break inproto andcore presence would be bumping into a chair while wearing a VR headset, since predictive processing is based on M- and P-intentions with respect to the peripersonal space of the VR game, and the chair is not part of it.A disruption ofSo far, we have presented examples regarding VR, in which sensory selective attention is mainly direct towards exteroception, but there are cases in which attention is mainly directed towards interoception, namely affective and imagined states. Interoception includes a range of perceptions related to: brain-to-body signalling; neural encoding, representation, and integration of information concerning body states; influence of basic inner perceptions on more complex states (including feelings and emotions); and conscious perception of bodily states . DiffereTo solve the “book problem”, it is not necessary to postulate an imaginary world in which an agent feels present, this is just a metaphorical expression used to describe a complex phenomenon. The sense of spatial presence experienced when reading or engaging with audiovisual narrative, can be explained in terms of a shift of sensory selective attention from exteroception towards interoception, and increased precision attributed to interoceptive predictions , which icore presence  andextended presence . They are not consciously paying attention to the cheers of the crowd, but these certainly intervene in increasing their sense of presence and in helping them to find the right concentration. This is true also in the case of reading, when sensory selective attention is supposed to be completely directed on the page in front of the reader, in order to semantically process the sentences and make sense of the complexity of a narrative , the balance between the energy required by predictive processing and the agent’s explicit goals (flow), and the possible interaction with other agents . Let us now consider the role of time in such relationships, including the particular kind of temporal configuration of experience called “narrative”.during a narrative experience, processes which can serve various psychological functions. In brief, deep temporal models of the kind underlying narrative experiences allow an agent “to accumulate evidenceover different temporal scales to find the best explanation for their sensations”  functions , not witdominant factor in the processing and organization of perception  and scoring the point (D-intention), not on winning the match (broader D-intention). However, when defocusing because the experience is over, it can be surprising to observe that the sequence of short time intervals required to accomplish the goal set by the broader D-intention was longer than expected. This is because during the match the player did not update their predictions regarding the D-intention “winning the match”, since it was more urgent to make correct predictions for the M-, P-, and D-intentions necessary to hit the ball and score points. On the other hand, in the case of narrative experiences, sustained attention and predictions on a wider time range are required. For instance, to predict what a character would do, a reader needs to consider what they have read in the narrative up to that point, what information they received about the character’s past, what genre conventions are probably relevant , how the plot developed so far, what are the probable character’s expectations, etc. This kind of predictive processing often requires skills that in everyday life are needed to make long-term decisions, thus used not as often as the skills required for other kinds of short- and mid-term predictions. Narrative deep temporal models  allow prAmong the groups of items related to narrative absorption cf., those aOne of the typical features of narrative is the generation of three main effects on the audience: suspense, curiosity, and surprise . Suspenssyuzhet andfabula,Suspense and curiosity tend to create a continuity between core and extended presence, whereas surprise often partially disrupts extended presence. In other words, with suspense and curiosity, the combination of the medium’s design and its content (Narrative prediction errors can occur either with respect to the plot (e.g. a surprising event) or as difficulties in establishing precise predictions on the level of the narration  . In bothThis PP theoretical model of narrative absorption is consistent with findings by , retrospection (curiosity), and recognition (surprise), narrative is a training ground for predictive processing, providing “alternate hypotheses that generalise and therefore preclude overfitting (sensory) data”  their implicit and explicit embodied predictions about possible action. When a prediction is not correctly enacted (break in presence), sensory selective attention is shifted towards the source of the prediction error, in order to facilitate the encoding of the wrong prediction in the brain, address it, and update the predictive model about the agent’s self-perceived agency.Social presence: agents prereflexivelyrecognize and evaluate the intentions and actions of others using the same predictive model that controls their own intention and actions. The others can be real, virtual, imagined, or fictional agents. When an agent successfully predicts and enacts the intentions of another agent, social presence emerges, sometimes in the form of cognitive and affective matching of the other’s intentions.Narrative absorption: when the temporal organization of perception is dominant for the enactment of predictions, agents undergo a narrative experience, which can be absorbing if a sense of presence emerges and sustained attention is kept on distal intentions. The deep temporal models underlying the narrative experience allow an agent to accumulate evidence over different temporal scales to find the best explanation for their sensations.Flow: it is a characteristic of all three phenomena  related to the optimal balance between the skills possessed for an action and the challenges offered by the action. This corresponds to an optimal dynamic between predictions and prediction errors that does not disrupt the predictive model beyond an extent manageable by the agent only with moderate updates.Immersion: we suggest avoiding the use of the noun in scientific research and prefer the adjective “immersive”, referring to the meaning commonly adopted in VR research, namely a quality referring to the technological features of the medium. In this sense, expressions like “immersive medium”, “immersive experience”, or “immersive story” denote the potential of a medium or a specific mediated experience to elicit a sense of presence and narrative absorption. However, we are aware that in non-academic contexts the term “immersion” is commonly used with the meanings that we have here associated to presence and narrative absorption.The described phenomena are based on the same brain dynamics, regardless of whether they are activated by a direct body stimulus or a stimulus mediated by physical, digital, or symbolic tools. The difference between the various stimuli, with respect to the emergence of presence, lies in a shift of sensory selective attention between exteroceptive and interoceptive perception and in the related attribution of higher/lower precision to predictions based on each of the two kinds of perception. The “book problem” and the “paradox of fiction” should be addressed as the attribution of higher precision to interoception, with the consequent regulation of interoceptive signals (emotions) by allocating more cognitive resources to their processing. Moreover, the interplay of intentions of different type  also intervenes in the process, relativizing prediction errors and breaks in presence at lower levels.To sum up, from the perspective of users, players, readers, and audience: an optimal balance between predictions and prediction errors (flow) facilitates the emergence of a sense of spatial presence, social presence, and narrative absorption. Alternatively, from the perspective of technology and media design: the more a medium or cultural artefact (e.g. narrative) is able to support the correct enactment of an individual’s predictions  and to clarify the intentions of others , the stronger is the sense of presence experienced with the medium or cultural artefact.Our suggestions are helpful to shed light on theoretical confusion and guide the reconceptualization of the discussed phenomena, but, in order to empirically test the validity of our model, more thorough experiments should be conducted, combining self-reported measures with data from observation e.g. and the To our knowledge, the model presented here is the first attempt at integrating results coming from a broad range of different fields and yielding in return a model that can be employed straight away in such disciplinary fields. Indeed, it can be applied to understand the cognitive and aesthetic processing of narratives, inform the creation of media experiences, and develop more effective solutions for embodied medicine.OSF: Presence, flow, and narrative absorption questionnaires: a scoping review https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RBZ8G (O/RBZ8G This project contains the following underlying data:scoping_review_data_2021-02-26.xlsx (Human-readable version containing the 23 selected questionnaires with color coding of the items and summary model)scoping_review_data_2021-02-26.csv (Machine-readable version containing the 23 selected questionnaires with the respective annotations for each item)Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).Data are available under the terms of the I do not have any additional comments. The authors clarified the main queries I had in response to their first draft in their reply. I am now happy to approve their submission for indexing.If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?YesIs the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?PartlyIs the work clearly and accurately presented and does it engage with the current literature?YesAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?YesAre sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?YesAre all the source data and materials underlying the results available?YesReviewer Expertise:Philosophy of mind and cognition.I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. In this interesting and rich paper the authors show how the concept of ‘presence’ used in relation to virtual reality can be generalised to explain a reader’s experience of absorption in reading a novel. The paper uses results of questionnaires to offer a taxonomy of different concepts of presence that would allow for this generalisation. The author’s also show how to use the predictive processing framework to explain each of the concepts of presence they introduce. In my view the manuscript is near enough ready to be indexed but there are a few points I would find it useful to see further elaborated. In particular I did not find particularly plausible the claim that the withdrawal from reality into a fictive world can be accounted for in terms of increasing of precision on predictions of interoception, and downweighing of exteroceptive predictions. I agree that incoming sensory inputs are downweighed when we find ourselves absorbed by what we are reading but this seems more comparable to shift from task-dependent processing to spontaneous, stimulus-independent thought sometimes discussed in the mind-wandering literature. One of the authors of this paper has actually explored this idea in earlier work but it doesn’t receive much attention in this paper. The paper contains many ideas that sometimes read as digressions from the main themes of the paper. I could not see the necessity of the lengthy discussion of intention and the distinctions that are made between different types of intention in section 5. Part of the reason this is not as clear as it might have been is because the authors are very fast in their introduction of the concept of agency. They say this is needed to account for presence without explaining how and then quickly move on to providing a lengthy discussion of intention. I had similar reservations about the discussion of mediation – again the authors take for granted the connection to presence without spelling out how they see this.Smaller issues: In the definition of ‘presence’ what is meant by ‘fit’ – how do we fit in the real, virtual or fictional world?Subjects are present, or they experience presence? Why would predictions relating to “symbolic tools” or “physical/digital tools” be attributed higher precision? This is too fast and needs unpacking.Typo – “multiplicate” should perhaps be “multiply”?Slater is referred to by their first name (p.4).Is it necessary to describe place illusion in terms of “the qualia of having a sensation”? Not all researchers agree that qualia exist so this seems a rather theory-dependent way of describing the phenomenon (p.6).I do not agree that the notion of perceptual presence as discussed by Noë and others is distinct from the concept of spatial presence as discussed later in this paper (p.6). Perhaps the authors take the difference to map onto the distinction between interoceptive and exteroceptive inference. But such a sharp distinction doesn’t in my view make sense given how interoception is at the core of all perception and action. This is a point that is emphasised in the work of Feldman-Barrett for example. Furthermore, presence is arguably tied to multisensory integration – the authors acknowledge this at various points (e.g. p.9). But multisensory integration is precisely the integration of exteroceptive, interoceptive and proprioceptive sensory states.motor contingencies. I guess it depends on what you mean by agency here but this criticism seems weak to me. The other points you make about genre conventions and personal relevance work better but then one wants to know how these factors are relevant for responding to the paradox of fiction/book problem.The PPMSC does not necessarily “downplay agency” (p.7) since counterfactuals are used to account for sensoriWhy does the book problem require a shift to interoception (p.8)? I would have thought motor and sensory imagery were just as important for experiencing presence in an imagined world. See point 8. I agree that precision is weighted towards the book as a source of sensory input and the imagery elicited by the text but why restrict this imagery to the responses of the internal viscera? Think for example of the example of Don Quixote riding his horse. The imagery here is not restricted the viscera and autonomic responses. What is meant by “evolutive tool”?Possible typo: Your intention to move your hand is satisfied when you move your hand, not by your ability to move your hand (p.12).It is unclear to me why the somewhat lengthy and elaborate discussion of intention in section 5.2 is included. I follow everything the authors write about intention in this section and its connection to motor schemas and propositional content but I don’t see how this material relates back to spatial presence. Perhaps the link is supposed to come from the discussion of peripersonal space but it is not clear to me how. I was following the argument more or less up until this section but the authors have now lost me. There are many concepts introduced in this paper and it is hard to keep track of everything.How is the concept of mediation introduced in 5.3 related to presence? The rest of the paper worked well. Look forward to reviewing a new version.If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?YesIs the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?PartlyIs the work clearly and accurately presented and does it engage with the current literature?YesAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?YesAre sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?YesAre all the source data and materials underlying the results available?YesReviewer Expertise:Philosophy of mind and cognition.I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Thank you very much for your comments, they will help us better express a few points of our argumentation. A. You said: “I did not find particularly plausible the claim that the withdrawal from reality into a fictive world can be accounted for in terms of increasing of precision on predictions of interoception, and downweighing of exteroceptive predictions”. mainly directed towards different entities. Interoception is more salient when reading/watching fiction, but predictions regarding space and other agents are very important, too. That is why we consider spatial presence and social presence as phenomena that contribute to the emergence of narrative absorption. We are aware that another article is needed to better present all the nuances of our possible engagement with fiction, and to clarify to what extent spatial and social presence are necessary for narrative absorption to emerge. We are going to write that article soon. In the meantime, we look forward to continuing the discussion. This statement includes two elements: (1) how can a written text achieve the experience of presence in readers  and (2) why would we seek it out?  We argue that in real-world environments, interoception is limited (through sensory attenuation) so that we can perceive, move and explore in exteroception with ease. Inversely, by limiting exteroception in reading (through the poor stimulus of written language), we can place greater attention on interoception and explore inner states . This greater explorative freedom in interoception accounts also for the attraction of reading literature. When we decide to read/watch fiction, we do so because we are mostly interested in the effects it has on us and we take pleasure in having emotions and thoughts prompted by a narrative. That is, we engage in this activity – and in the predictive processes involved in it – with the distal intention of receiving some kind of interoceptive perception. Whereas, when we interact with some object, person, or animal, our predictions are more sensitive to our perception of these external entities and to their behavior in response to our interaction with them. Accordingly, our intentions are ultimately focused on achieving a non-equilibrium state (free energy minimization) in relation to our existence in a space inhabited by other objects and agents. When reading/watching fiction, our internal states are more important than making correct sensorimotor predictions about the real space in which we are or the fictional space we are observing/imagining. Consider the case of a video game of a flight simulator: it is not uncommon for players to intentionally crash the plane they are flying into a mountain or some other object, just because it is fun to see the explosion resulting from this action. We might follow a character doomed to die in a fictional narrative for comparable reasons. In this case, like in many other forms of interactions with virtual and fictional worlds, the interoceptive states prompted by our actions are more relevant (have a higher precision) than the resulting situation in terms of specific changes happening to objects and space: it is enough to roughly predict that the plane is going to explode, without predicting how its shape or that of the mountain with which it collided will be modified. For this reason, in Figure 2b we differentiate between intentions  A final point that we want to underline, is that the focus on interoception does not downplay the critical role played by motor and sensory imagery. We agree with you: they are important for experiencing presence in an imagined world because their content is used to generate the interoceptive prediction. In simpler words, motor and sensory imagery generate an interoceptive prediction – based on the individual’s previous experiences - that is then compared with internal interoceptive signals. The individual feels present when predictions and signals do not differ. You raise the related issue of spontaneous cognition / mind-wandering in relation to absorption in reading. The article mentioned by you (Fabry and Kukkonen 2019) proposes that literary texts depend on elements of concentration to create the necessary absorption, but that within such absorption, readers engage in mental time travel within the fictional world and establish self-relevance by relating events they read about to their own memories spontaneously in mind-wandering. The relation between these two dimensions, and the textual cues provoking them, however, still need to be developed in greater detail. One of us is currently preparing a paper detailing an inventory of embodied cues for mind-wandering and attention in reading. Following what we said before, a possibility is that absorption is related to the possibility of the literary text of generating an interoceptive prediction, a possibility that also depends on the previous experience of the individual and on its ability to give meaning to the text.   B. With respect to your concern about the many digressions found in the article, we agree that the paper is quite long, but we felt that it was necessary to introduce the different types of intentions and mediations. As we tried to clarify in point A above, the distinction between proximal and distal intentions is necessary to understand how precision weighting works in relation to fiction. Moreover, the same distinction is useful to account for how different media and technologies can affect spatial presence, social presence, and narrative absorption. Namely, as we discuss in the examples in sections 5.3 (Mediated action) and 5.6 (Narrative and time), the dynamics involving focused attention and the different types of intentions can explain situations that are very common when reading/watching fiction or interacting with virtual worlds. The many possible configurations regarding a medium, its design in conveying a certain content, the type of content presented, and the cultural expectations that agents have are not something that can occasionally occur, they are what makes each work of fiction, game, and art having cognitive-affective effects on us. Therefore, a theory of narrative, fiction, and technological mediation more broadly, should account for how these various aspects influence perception and to what extent they are interdependent. Anyway, we will try to sharpen some parts of section 5, also considering your useful suggestion about the concept of agency and the relation between presence and mediation. Regarding the smaller issues you mentioned:1.   In the definition of ‘presence’ what is meant by ‘fit’ – how do we fit in the real, virtual or fictional world? With the verb “fit” we refer to the pursuit of an optimal interaction with the environment (including other agents), i.e. the outcome of successful predictive processing.Subjects are present, or they experience presence? . 2.    We use the two phrases as synonyms: we are present when we experience presence.Why would predictions relating to “symbolic tools” or “physical/digital tools” be attributed higher precision? This is too fast and needs unpacking. 3.   precision … attributed to the different layers of embodied predictions : predictions related to physical/digital tools and physical/digital objects attribute higher precision to exteroceptive and proprioceptive layers and/or vestibular information, according to the activity performed (section 5.3). Instead, predictions related to symbolic tools attribute higher precision to interoceptive information (section 5.4)”. Actually, we claim that “The main difference is related to the Is it necessary to describe place illusion in terms of “the qualia of having a sensation”? Not all researchers agree that qualia exist so this seems a rather theory-dependent way of describing the phenomenon (p.6).  6.    We agree that it is not necessary, here we are reporting Slater’s account.I do not agree that the notion of perceptual presence as discussed by Noë and others is distinct from the concept of spatial presence as discussed later in this paper (p.6). Perhaps the authors take the difference to map onto the distinction between interoceptive and exteroceptive inference. But such a sharp distinction doesn’t in my view make sense given how interoception is at the core of all perception and action. This is a point that is emphasised in the work of Feldman-Barrett for example. Furthermore, presence is arguably tied to multisensory integration – the authors acknowledge this at various points (e.g. p.9). But multisensory integration is precisely the integration of exteroceptive, interoceptive and proprioceptive sensory states. 7.    We think they are very different concepts: “perceptual presence” is a phenomenological property attributed to objects/agents in relation to how they are perceived by someone, whereas “spatial presence” is a subjective-phenomenal state qualifying the experience of the perceiving agent. It may be possible that perceptual presence is required for the emergence of spatial  presence, but this is a philosophical discussion that goes beyond the scope of our article. We agree with the position of Feldman-Barrett (2017): “allostasis  and interoception  are at the anatomical and functional core of the nervous system. These insights offer a range of new hypotheses—e.g. that reappraisal and other regulation processes are accomplished with predictions that categorize sensory inputs and control action with concepts”. In our view, presence is based on allostatic processes that are focused either on exteroception or interoception.The PPMSC does not necessarily “downplay agency” (p.7) since counterfactuals are used to account for sensorimotor contingencies. I guess it depends on what you mean by agency here but this criticism seems weak to me. The other points you make about genre conventions and personal relevance work better but then one wants to know how these factors are relevant for responding to the paradox of fiction/book problem. 8.    We could have expressed this idea better. The main point is that Seth’s Predictive Processing SensoryMotor Contingencies model (PPSMC) presents representations as counterfactually poor, in comparison to “real world” action, because they can provide only a limited amount of sensory data to generate counterfactuals. In this conception, the assumption is that exteroceptive stimuli are more important for the generation of counterfactuals, whereas we claim that intentions and interoception can be as important, if not more, than exteroception, and thus generate a rich array of counterfactual predictions, which can make fictive, represented situations “look real”.  With respect to genre conventions and personal relevance, we will elaborate a bit more in the revision but will devote a follow-up article to exploring their role in more detail.  Why does the book problem require a shift to interoception (p.8)? I would have thought motor and sensory imagery were just as important for experiencing presence in an imagined world. See point 8. I agree that precision is weighted towards the book as a source of sensory input and the imagery elicited by the text but why restrict this imagery to the responses of the internal viscera? Think for example of the example of Don Quixote riding his horse. The imagery here is not restricted the viscera and autonomic responses.  9.   in the precision of embodied predictions towards interoception”. Sensorimotor perception is important, too, when reading/watching fiction , but the relevance of interoception is usually higher, namely with respect to distal intentions (see point A above). We also agree that imagery is important for experiencing presence in an imagined world because its content is used to generate interoceptive predictions.  We talked about a “shift   What is meant by “evolutive tool”? 10.  In this context, we meant a cognitive tool that significantly contributed to our evolution as a species, in terms of both our sensory coupling with the environment and our social and cultural relations with other agents. In particular, we suggest that by moving towards more advanced levels of presence the individual develops a more complex self and is able to enact more complex intentions.. How is the concept of mediation introduced in 5.3 related to presence? 13Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2648. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02648 Feldman Barrett, L. (2017). How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kukkonen, K. (2019). Exploring Inner Perceptions. Interoception, Literature, and Mindfulness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 26(11–12), 107–132. Kukkonen, K. (2020). Probability Designs: Literature and Predictive Processing. Oxford University Press. The mediation of technology modifies the extension of our peripersonal space, thus enabling us to have a broader range of sensorimotor perceptions related to fiction or virtual spaces/agents. This extension then allows us to feel spatial presence prompted by perceptions had by other  agents. We will clarify our argumentation in the revised article.   References Fabry, R. E., & Kukkonen, K. (2019). Reconsidering the Mind-Wandering Reader: Predictive Processing, Probability Designs, and Enculturation.  I enjoyed reading this theoretical review and account of presence, flow and narrative absorption. I thought that the authors did an excellent job in bringing together the attending conceptual and theoretical themes. I will comment from the point of view of active inference and predictive processing in theoretical neurobiology. My main recommendations would be to clarify the relationship between active inference and predictive processing – and to leverage a couple of formal issues in active inference that substantiate the authors treatment. In particular, perhaps you could consider the following: I thought it was very useful to frame the discussion in terms of narratives. The notion of a narrative is key for the kind of deep generative models that you refer in Section 5. As you note, narratives have both a spatial and temporal aspect; the latter being probably more definitive for narratives. It might be useful to make this explicit with a sentence like the following in the introduction:” “Much of what follows rest upon the notion of a narrative that has an inherently sequential, ordinal or temporal aspect that—as we will see later—generally entails a deep temporal structure. In terms of the relationship between active inference and predictive processing, this can be a little subtle. From your perspective, I think you can assume they are the same thing. This means you might want to nuance a couple of references to active inference. Specifically, at the bottom of page 3, you refer to an extension of the standard predictive processing scheme that incorporates interoceptive information. In fact there is no standard predictive processing scheme. What you are referring to is generally called interoceptive inference, which is a special case of active inference. Could you delete "and active inference models" on page 7: you seem to imply that active inference does not include counterfactual probabilities. In fact, the policy selection that underwrites active inference is a selection from counterfactual policies. You intimate this in your footnote 2, where you refer to "a form of enactive inference". This is just active inference. In section 5, I was compelled by your treatment of narratives and anticipation. I think it would be useful to bring out the central role of generative models and, implicitly, shared narratives in terms of narrative absorption. Perhaps with something like: “The key construct for predictive processing  is the notion of a generative model. In other words, everything we do in the service of securing evidence for our model of how sensations are generated; the other words, a model of the latent causes or states generating the sensorium. In this setting, a narrative becomes part of a deep generative model that, usually, entails a separation of temporal scales, where things unfold more slowly with hierarchical depth. An obvious example here is language; however, any narrative could be cast as the ordered sequence of contexts that specify a subordinate sequence events that unfold for the duration of any context at the level above. The notion of narrative-as-a-generative model becomes especially prescient in the current setting because we are generally seeking narratives that best explain the sensory evidence at hand. If this sensory evidence is generated by a  other, then inferring the narrative that they have in mind can be an extremely ill-posed problem. However, this problem is finessed if you and I share the same narrative . In other words, if we share a narrative, I can use my generative model of my own engagement with the world to predict what you will do next; thereby enabling me to infer your intentions from your actions. This has been cast in terms of solving (or perhaps dissolving) the problem of neuronal hermeneutics—that underlies mutual understanding and theory of mind. Put simply, to identify with a character in a story, I just need to infer that the character shares my narratives, intentional stances and prior beliefs ."). This may offer a formal basis for the notion of a shared social presence? There are a few simulations that speak to the implicit synchronization you refer to under this formulation. For example, . In the setting of active inference, curiosity is the thing that underlies epistemic affordance and would be essential for simulating "narrative absorption". The most explicit simulation of this is in terms of the aha moment . Although simulated in terms of abstract rule recognition, one might imagine exactly the same principles apply to the dénouement of a story or narrative. There is quite a lot of work on artificial curiosity that may be useful for your treatment of narrative absorption. This ranges from intrinsic motivation in robotics to curiosity and fun in generalized artificial intelligence , then it is useful to talk about narrative processing, a narrative organization of perceptions. But if the temporal unfolding of an action is not very relevant, then it is inaccurate to talk about “narrative”, e.g. if two of us are in the café and got our coffee, and you put your cup on the table where we are sitting, I do not consider my visual processing of your action as a narrative, because in this situation I am normally not expecting (predicting) me to do any action with your coffee. I can infer from your action that you have no intention of drinking coffee for some time, but I think it is not appropriate to conceive of this inference as a narrative. It would be a different case if you explicitly invited me to try the new special blend you ordered, in which case your invitation will prompt a shared narrative about trying something new, hoping it tastes good, and me giving you an opinion about it. Again, predictions have a narrative form only in some cases, namely when its temporal organization is dominant in our processing of perceptions. 2b. You also mention that “to identify with a character in a story, I just need to infer that the character shares my narratives, intentional stances and prior beliefs ”. We do not think this is always the case. Like all the other mentioned subjective-phenomenal states , identification with a character — extended social presence, in the terms we used in the article — can occur with different degrees of intensity and can be achieved through many different processes. What you suggest is a situation in which identification is probably quite strong, but it can also happen that we identify with a character even though we do not share with them any specific intentional stance or prior belief. For instance, it may be the case that our prior beliefs only align with the narrative plot more broadly, like when reading a “rags to riches” story and relating it to our life narrative of personal success. In this case, we are able to identify with the character in a broad sense, even though, let’s say, the character’s success is due to luck (or the author’s fiat) only. An identification might occur, because readers wish a similar outcome for themselves, even though they cannot expect as much luck but have to achieve the results through hard work. In other cases, it is even more simple, identification can be prompted even by the mention of a physical trait – or other small details – shared by reader and character, as one of us noticed it is frequently happening for young readers . 3. Yes, the model proposed in Friston and Frith (2015) can be a formal basis for the notion of social presence, and it can also explain other aspects of reading fiction. For instance, a familiarity with the genre “detective fiction” can be conceived as a form of shared precision expectations between author and reader. Knowing that it is likely that a character will be murdered is a piece of shared information that influences the reader’s prediction about the “sensations generated by another” through a text. One of us articulated in more detail such larger, genre-based predictions in literary reading processes .Probability Designs: Literature and Predictive Processing. Oxford University Press. Pianzola, F., Rebora, S., & Lauer, G. (2020). Wattpad as a resource for literary studies. Quantitative and qualitative examples of the importance of digital social reading and readers’ comments in the margins. PLoS ONE, 15(1).https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226708 4. Thanks for pointing us to research on artificial curiosity. Modelling curiosity in artificial agents is a very interesting topic and is very relevant with respect to how "artificial environments" such as VR, games, and narrative can be formally modelled reducing the complexity of the subjective-phenomenal state that they generate, including narrative absorption. It would be interesting also to simulate and compare how artificial agents process narrative differently than humans. Namely, as artificial agents are not embodied (but our model is), it needs to be asked whether a level of embodiment also would have to be modelled for the artificial agent. Another important aspect to be considered in creating a computational model of narrative processing is that “artificial curiosity” seems to be a term including all the three processes we have presented – curiosity, surprise, and suspense – but their dynamics are different both in temporal and cognitive terms, as we discuss in the article.   References Kukkonen, K. (2020).


The discipline of knowledge translation (KT) emerged as a way of systematically understanding and addressing the challenges of applying health and medical research in practice. In light of ongoing and emerging critique of KT from the medical humanities and social sciences disciplines, KT researchers have become increasingly aware of the complexity of the translational process, particularly the significance of culture, tradition and values in how scientific evidence is understood and received, and thus increasingly receptive to pluralistic notions of knowledge. Hence, there is now an emerging view of KT as a highly complex, dynamic, and integrated sociological phenomenon, which neither assumes nor creates knowledge hierarchies and neither prescribes nor privileges scientific evidence. Such a view, however, does not guarantee that scientific evidence will be applied in practice and thus poses a significant dilemma for KT regarding its status as a scientific and practice-oriented discipline, particularly within the current sociopolitical climate. Therefore, in response to the ongoing and emerging critique of KT, we argue that KT must provide scope for relevant scientific evidence to occupy an appropriate position of epistemic primacy in public discourse. Such a view is not intended to uphold the privileged status of science nor affirm the “scientific logos” per se. It is proffered as a counterbalance to powerful social, cultural, political and market forces that are able to challenge scientific evidence and promote disinformation to the detriment of democratic outcomes and the public good. What thus emerged was a hierarchical view of knowledge that privileged the kinds of empirical evidence referred to previously, in which it assumed that non-application of such evidence constituted a failure of knowledge translation. It also entrenched scientists, medical experts, and healthcare professionals in a position of prescriptive authority over patients. Such a view eventually prompted criticisms of the EBM and EBP movements as being scientistic and contributing to the time taken for evidence to be translated into practice , a federal agency responsible for funding health and medical research in Canada, developed a widely used definition of KT that has been recently refined in order to capture the broader system of complex interactions across multiple stakeholders CIHR, 2. As a rIn this paper, we begin by discussing a few examples of the emerging critique of the role that scientific evidence and expertise play public policy, and related critique of KT. We highlight the interplay of political, ethical, and epistemological arguments aimed at challenging the privileged status of science in policy and practice, and its epistemic primacy. We then turn our attention to the way that the emerging critique aligns with and informs the emerging view of KT. Here we use the KT-cnm as a case example due to the way it explicitly situates KT within broader sociocultural and public policy contexts, though we do not necessarily advocate for it, nor do we endorse it as the “correct” model. Following on from this we consider the implications of the emerging critique for our understanding and practice of KT. We point out that it raises a significant dilemma for KT, especially given the prevalence of post-truthism, populism, and identity politics in the current sociopolitical climate. We suggest that KT researchers should be cautious in how they respond to the emerging critique, and in particular, resist the temptation to adopt contentious epistemological views that may further fuel the problems of the current sociopolitical climate.The emerging critique highlights genuine problems in how science has been and continues to be applied to matters of public concern and has much to offer by way of informing emerging KT perspectives. However, our point of departure is to question the extent to which it enables us to effectively address matters of public concern by drawing attention to the problems of the current sociopolitical climate, particularly its detrimental impact on public discourse, which has thus far received inadequate consideration. This is the focus of the second part of the paper where we discuss the nature of those problems and their historical antecedents in the hope that it can help us better understand the challenges that KT faces and inform potential solutions. Ultimately, our view is that KT must provide scope for epistemic standards to exist and accordingly for scientific evidence to occupy an appropriate position of epistemic primacy within public discourse. This necessitates developing and implementing strategies to promote conditions for a basic consensus on elementary matters of fact and value, which can lead to the understanding that scientific evidence carries significant weight when it comes to deciphering facts or truths about particular matters. Indeed, many aspects of the emerging critique and emerging KT perspective can inform such an approach, some examples of which are provided in the final section.The emerging critique and KT perspective reflect concerns about how scientific evidence and expertise has been privileged at the expense of culturally situated knowledge and humanistic values. Critics view such privileging as an expression of scientism or positivism or as a way of promoting “the scientific logos” .  suggests an adoption of Latour’s relativist ontology and epistemology, implying that the referents of scientific statements and thus their epistemic status are constructed from the complex activities (semiotic activities) of networks made up of both human and non-human “actors” Latour, ; 2012. MThe KT-cnm derives from an application of complexity science and network principles and expands on recent trends towards more integrated and dynamic conceptions of KT  must be seized upon so that stakeholders do not adapt to different perturbations in a siloed manner but instead co-adapt to those perturbations and thus co-evolve in connected and synergistic ways. Such co-adaptation and co-evolution will then encompass how they understand the nature of the problem and the evidence that bears on it. Where there had been conflicting views and tensions, the co-adaptive process entails a shared understanding of the issues or a mutual acceptance of multiple understandings.Coordination and effort are required to maintain, strengthen, and expand such interconnectivity and synergy, especially through sustained communication and dialogue that includes those beyond one’s immediate community. Barriers that prevent or limit such communication and dialogue  must therefore be identified and carefully navigated. Often, within stakeholder groups there are individuals with certain characteristics, attributes and skills who interact more extensively within their own and between various other groups. In doing so, they perform the crucial role of promoting interconnectivity and synergy by facilitating engagement and dialogue and overcoming barriers. KT models conceptualise such individuals as “knowledge brokers”, “facilitators”, or “boundary spanners”  early engagement of stakeholders across multiple sectors; (2) a shared understanding of the relevant issues or mutual acceptance of pluralities; (3) champions to promote engagement, interactivity, shared understandings, co-existence of differing viewpoints, and movement of knowledge within and across multiple stakeholder groups; and (4) continuous monitoring, evaluation, and maintenance of the quality of engagement and interactivity between stakeholders.KT as a discipline is primarily concerned with the application of scientific evidence in practice and KT researchers themselves are typically scientists whose views on relevant matters are shaped by the available scientific evidence, associated methods and overall disciplinary training. They may recognise scientific evidence as provisional, contested, and existing alongside many other views that should be afforded equal consideration, but such recognition does not entail that they regard all viewpoints as having the same epistemic status. Indeed, in KT there is an implicit assumption that scientific methods and evidence occupy a position of epistemic primacy, which can be understood in terms of two related ideas, namely, scientific realism and the normativity of science…its thesis of the context-dependency of all knowledge must also apply to the sociology of knowledge itself, the sociology of knowledge makes a general truth claim which it at once denies. , then it remains compatible with such a view of KT. Critics, however, may view it as a cynical and surreptitious manoeuvre aimed at upholding and promoting the privileged status of science. Insofar as “pragmatism” and “pluralism” is used to denote a more substantive epistemic position associated with the philosophy of science and sociology of knowledge perspective, then it is no longer compatible with such a view of KT and faces a range of philosophical objections . How people understand and receive scientific evidence is not only influenced by its perceived economic impact, but also by how it bears on their moral values and cultural norms. Difficulties arise when scientific experts and policymakers act in ways that challenge or undermine people’s values and belief systems, and particularly if it is done in haste and without adequate public consultation or dialogue. It can also lead to backlash and distrust in the very institutional systems responsible for addressing matters of public concern Smith, .The emerging critique rightfully highlights the relevance and importance of these considerations and the problems that KT faces if it neglects such considerations. However, it fails to acknowledge the difficulty and dilemma of having to accommodate such considerations in the current sociopolitical climate while also bringing the relevant science to bear on matters of public concern, particularly highly complex national and global scale “wicked problems” such as the COVID-19 pandemic and anthropogenic climate change  is that on the one hand the emerging perspective opposes a unilateral approach that simply imposes outcomes on the public. Such an approach is likely to be counterproductive and may also encourage the public to become increasingly sceptical of scientific expertise and governments while increasingly susceptible to post-truth narratives. On the other hand, given the urgency of wicked problems like COVID-19 and anthropogenic climate change, and the difficulty of navigating the complex interplay of politics, economics, vested interests, and sociocultural divisions, the tactical manoeuvre of engaging with and integrating the broad range of public viewpoints on these wicked problems is also unlikely to succeed and may be counterproductive. Such an approach requires a level of prior consensus on certain basic facts and values pertaining to those wicked problems, for example, facts that entail recognition of the problem’s existence and its most elementary nature, and values such as knowledge, truth, democracy, the public good, and survival of species. In light of these considerations, we argue that the emerging KT perspective should be geared towards promoting the conditions for such a basic consensus to emerge, and more generally, redressing the problems of the current sociopolitical climate rather than accommodating them. This would enable future KT approaches to be more effective in addressing such wicked problems. Consideration of the current state of the public sphere and public discourse, and its historical antecedents can help to inform the approach.The ideal of a healthy and functioning public sphere is captured by Jurgen Habermas’s notion of the “bourgeois public sphere”, which he described as “a sphere of private people come together as a public” . The economically marginalised, expecting universal accessibility, equal opportunity, and entitlement to political participation, would respond primarily through political means. For them, the solution to disparity in wealth and social power was a stronger state. However, those with wealth and social power would also respond by leveraging their relationship with the state to gain political power, which Habermas , was a consequence of the transformation of the public sphere described by Habermas. It was extremely difficult for liberals and conservatives to resolve issues that defined their war . The public sphere became a sphere of parochialism in which partisans formed political, corporate, and legal allegiances to have their views prevail using increasingly strategic and rhetorical forms of public discourse. Nowadays, liberals and conservatives alike continue to align themselves with institutions and political parties that embody and seek to normalise their values, however, the divisions seem to have become further entrenched and bound by ideology. For example, new progressive social movements have emerged  that express themselves through protestation and censorship or what is referred to as “cancel culture”. Conservatives respond by appealing to various notions of freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression, civil liberties, and freedom from government oppression, indicating more explicit incorporation of libertarian, nationalist, anti-globalisation, and anti-regulation perspectives into their ideological purview. Adding to the divisions are the problems of income inequality and their negative impact on the working and middle class. This was particularly felt during the 2008 global financial crisis and has led to increasing resentment and disaffection with government and an increasingly critical stance towards globalisation, immigration, and multiculturalism. Populist figures who openly challenged liberal institutions and movements while simultaneously repudiating the perceived weaknesses of the conservative establishment were thus able to win the approval of a large proportion of the working and middle class, the most noteworthy example being Donald Trump who became the 45th US president. Fox News had already established itself as the preferred and authoritative source of news and information for conservatives, but populist media figures and public intellectuals promoting ideas that challenged existing and emerging liberal movements also began to emerge. As Beinart  that are underpinned by market driven approaches have further enabled the proliferation of social movements devoted primarily to influencing and shaping rather than discussing and debating public policy  will adapt according to their own goals and interests, and in competition with other systems, using increasingly strategic and unilateral means if necessary. It becomes easier to make the case that a particular policy response is merely a form of coercive control imposed for economic or political gain rather than for the public good, especially if there is perceived or actual negative impact on particular individuals. Ultimately, when a disaffected public no longer trust that institutions like universities, governments, and regulatory bodies exist to promote the public good, but instead exist to promote their own private interests, the epistemic status of scientific evidence becomes moot and post-truthism flourishes.The contemporary public sphere now embodies various social, cultural, political, economic, and historical conditions that make it increasingly difficult for relevant scientific evidence to appropriately bear on public policy. This is highlighted by the examples of the COVID-19 pandemic and anthropogenic climate change where the necessary preconditions  for emerging KT approaches to resolve such wicked problems do not exist. Champions to facilitate engagement, interactivity, and to mobilise relevant knowledge across multiple stakeholder groups in the public sphere are lacking. Traditionally, such roles would have been fulfilled by the media, public intellectuals, captains of industry, and elected public officials, but many have become or have been displaced by partisans and populists. Public broadcasting and public interest journalism has lost much of its outreach and authority, especially after being tainted with the label of “fake news” by conservative media and conservative populists. Dealing in facts and engaging stakeholders may facilitate consensus and arbitrate over conflicts, but this can be difficult if facts are highly complex and inadequately communicated. It is near impossible if facts no longer matter or are considered to be on equal epistemic footing with contrary viewpoints, especially those associated with post-truth narratives.Scientific evidence plays an indispensable role in addressing many of the wicked problems we face, particularly with regard to how we understand the nature of the problems, the threat they pose, and potential solutions. However, in order for scientific evidence to play such a role, it must first be distinguishable in some way from the myriad viewpoints that exist, especially those that are simply untrue and perhaps dangerous. Thus, we point out that scientific evidence naturally distinguishes itself in virtue of its epistemic status, which as discussed in a previous section, is simply the view that the methods of science are the best methods we have for discovering certain truths or facts about the world. It does not entail that scientific evidence is infallible or that it ought to supplant all other relevant facts or considerations. Indeed, the emerging critique makes a compelling case for the need to consider facts about culture, tradition, and values alongside relevant scientific evidence, but as we have argued in this paper, the application of such a perspective in the current sociopolitical climate makes it increasingly difficult for scientific evidence to bear on matters of public concern. Therefore, KT must ensure that there is scope for scientific evidence to occupy an appropriate position of epistemic primacy within public discourse.Indeed, many of the basic principles of the KT-cnm can be applied towards achieving such outcomes and also align with recent proposals aimed at addressing the problems of the current sociopolitical climate. For example, reflecting the importance of early engagement with stakeholders, many have advocated for an educational response, in the form of embedding scientific literacy, critical thinking skills, and civic education programs in primary and secondary school curricula  to facilitate appropriate public discourse and debate, and to act as a counterbalance to the prevalence of misinformation Dobbie, . These iThe recent evolution in our understanding of KT demonstrates a recognition of the complex sociological nature of the problems that KT aims to address. Emerging KT perspectives such as the KT-cnm help us understand how complex systems are constituted, how they behave, and how promoting interconnectivity and engagement within and between systems increases the likelihood of co-adaptive and co-evolutionary outcomes. The emerging KT perspective thus provides a framework for matters of public concern to be addressed in a collaborative and inclusive way. However, with regard to wicked problems that require a rapid collective response, it may be ineffective and potentially counterproductive, especially in the current sociopolitical climate. For posterity, we argue that KT must advocate for epistemic standards, and accordingly, for scientific evidence to occupy an appropriate position of epistemic primacy within public discourse. This can be achieved by tailoring emerging KT approaches towards redressing the problems of the current sociopolitical climate rather than accommodating them. Only then can a consensus on relevant elementary facts and values emerge, and the preconditions for effective KT established. The intention here is neither to affirm nor promote the privileged status of science, nor to surreptitiously impose scientific evidence or scientific standards of practice on the public. Rather, it is a necessary response to a post-truth political economy, one in which democratic outcomes and the public good are too easily undermined by extant and emerging power structures that are now able to leverage the highly problematic idea that the epistemic status of scientific evidence is irrelevant or unfounded.