Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29184060›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Predictive feedback to V1 dynamically updates with sensory input.

Grace Edwards, Petra Vetter, Fiona McGruer, Lucy S Petro, Lars Muckli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Perceptual learning across saccades: Feature but not location specific.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Resolving visual motion through perceptual gaps.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Numerosity Perception in Peripheral Vision.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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.

Grace EdwardsCentre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, 58 Hillhead Street, Glasgow, G12 8QB, UK.
Petra VetterCentre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, 58 Hillhead Street, Glasgow, G12 8QB, UK.
Fiona McGruerCentre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, 58 Hillhead Street, Glasgow, G12 8QB, UK.
Lucy S PetroCentre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, 58 Hillhead Street, Glasgow, G12 8QB, UK.
Lars MuckliCentre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, 58 Hillhead Street, Glasgow, G12 8QB, UK. Lars.Muckli@glasgow.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0143-4324

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/G005044/1European Research Council 311751Medical Research Council MR/N003403/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predictive coding theories propose that the brain creates internal models of the environment to predict upcoming sensory input. Hierarchical predictive coding models of vision postulate that higher visual areas generate predictions of sensory inputs and feed them back to early visual cortex. In V1, sensory inputs that do not match the predictions lead to amplified brain activation, but does this amplification process dynamically update to new retinotopic locations with eye-movements? We investigated the effect of eye-movements in predictive feedback using functional brain imaging and eye-tracking whilst presenting an apparent motion illusion. Apparent motion induces an internal model of motion, during which sensory predictions of the illusory motion feed back to V1. We observed attenuated BOLD responses to predicted stimuli at the new post-saccadic location in V1. Therefore, pre-saccadic predictions update their retinotopic location in time for post-saccadic input, validating dynamic predictive coding theories in V1.

Indexed as

NeurofeedbackPhotic StimulationAdultBrain MappingFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMotionMotion PerceptionSaccadesVisual CortexYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29184060
PMCPMC5705713

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.