Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27079423›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

Differential neural mechanisms for early and late prediction error detection.

Rahim Malekshahi, Anil Seth, Amalia Papanikolaou, Zenon Mathews, Niels Birbaumer, Paul F M J Verschure, Andrea Caria

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Dynamic Interactions between Top-Down Expectations and Conscious Awareness.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2018
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Synthetic consciousness: the distributed adaptive control perspective.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2016
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Rahim MalekshahiInstitut für Medizinische Psychologie und Verhaltensneurobiologie, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Anil SethSackler Centre for Consciousness Science and School of Informatics, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Amalia PapanikolaouGraduate Training Centre of Neuroscience, International Max Planck Research School, Tübingen, Germany.
Zenon MathewsSPECS, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
Niels BirbaumerInstitut für Medizinische Psychologie und Verhaltensneurobiologie, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Paul F M J VerschureSPECS, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
Andrea CariaInstitut für Medizinische Psychologie und Verhaltensneurobiologie, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Universitat Pompeu Fabra · ESUniversity of Tübingen · DEMax Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics · DEUniversity of Sussex · GBUniversity of Trento · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emerging evidence indicates that prediction, instantiated at different perceptual levels, facilitate visual processing and enable prompt and appropriate reactions. Until now, the mechanisms underlying the effect of predictive coding at different stages of visual processing have still remained unclear. Here, we aimed to investigate early and late processing of spatial prediction violation by performing combined recordings of saccadic eye movements and fast event-related fMRI during a continuous visual detection task. Psychophysical reverse correlation analysis revealed that the degree of mismatch between current perceptual input and prior expectations is mainly processed at late rather than early stage, which is instead responsible for fast but general prediction error detection. Furthermore, our results suggest that conscious late detection of deviant stimuli is elicited by the assessment of prediction error's extent more than by prediction error per se. Functional MRI and functional connectivity data analyses indicated that higher-level brain systems interactions modulate conscious detection of prediction error through top-down processes for the analysis of its representational content, and possibly regulate subsequent adaptation of predictive models. Overall, our experimental paradigm allowed to dissect explicit from implicit behavioral and neural responses to deviant stimuli in terms of their reliance on predictive models.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalModels, PsychologicalAdultBrainBrain MappingDecision MakingFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleVisual PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27079423
PMCPMC4832139
OpenAlexW2337841910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.