Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27222169›Full record

ReviewConsciousness and cognition2017

Predictions penetrate perception: Converging insights from brain, behaviour and disorder.

Claire O'Callaghan, Kestutis Kveraga, James M Shine, Reginald B Adams, Moshe Bar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Consciousness and cognition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 171 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cognition does not automatically influence perception: Evidence from neural encoding of colors belonging to different categories.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Feminist Social Vision: Seeing Through the Lens of Marginalized Perceivers.Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc · 2023
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Do psychedelics change beliefs?Psychopharmacology · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Claire O'CallaghanBehavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: claire.ocallaghan@sydney.edu.au.
Kestutis KveragaAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
James M ShineSchool of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Reginald B AdamsDepartment of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Moshe BarGonda Center for Brain Research, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Bar-Ilan University · ILMassachusetts General Hospital · USPennsylvania State University · USStanford University · USUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Neurodynamics of Compound Threat Cue PerceptionR01MH101194 · NIMH · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI KVERAGA, KESTUTIS · 2014 to 2018
$3.7M
Inside the Social Perception Network: Dynamics, Connectivity, and StimulationR01MH107797 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI GHUMAN, AVNIEL S · 2015 to 2019
$2.4M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH101194NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH107797
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is argued that during ongoing visual perception, the brain is generating top-down predictions to facilitate, guide and constrain the processing of incoming sensory input. Here we demonstrate that these predictions are drawn from a diverse range of cognitive processes, in order to generate the richest and most informative prediction signals. This is consistent with a central role for cognitive penetrability in visual perception. We review behavioural and mechanistic evidence that indicate a wide spectrum of domains-including object recognition, contextual associations, cognitive biases and affective state-that can directly influence visual perception. We combine these insights from the healthy brain with novel observations from neuropsychiatric disorders involving visual hallucinations, which highlight the consequences of imbalance between top-down signals and incoming sensory information. Together, these lines of evidence converge to indicate that predictive penetration, be it cognitive, social or emotional, should be considered a fundamental framework that supports visual perception.

Indexed as

Social PerceptionBrainCognitionEmotionsHallucinationsHumansVisual PerceptionCognitive penetrationContextObject recognitionOrbitofrontal cortexParahippocampal cortexPredictionTop-downVisual hallucinationsVisual perception

Identifiers

PMID27222169
PMCPMC5764074
OpenAlexW2395730384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.