ArticleScientific reports2017
Stimulus expectation alters decision criterion but not sensory signal in perceptual decision making.
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 51 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
51 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modulating auditory attention and stimulus evaluation in the medial prefrontal cortex: A translational tone approach oddball paradigm in rats.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- Trial-by-trial fluctuations in decision criterion shape confidence.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Prior Expectations Bias Confidence Judgments Through Parietal Alpha-Band Modulation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Expectation Exerts Flexible and Context-dependent Influence on Conscious Object Recognition.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2026Article
- Type-1 and type-2 decisions feature computational noise of similar magnitude.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Effort expectation and strategic cue use in visual search.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- Signatures proposed to index perceptual effects emerge in a purely cognitive task.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Backward alpha band oscillations shape perceptual bias under probabilistic cues.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Article
- A Bayesian hierarchical model of trial-to-trial fluctuations in decision criterion.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Preparing to act follows Bayesian inference rules.iScience · 2025Article
- Semantic priming modulates the strength and direction of the Kanizsa illusion.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Dynamics of sensory and decisional biases in perceptual decision making: Insights from the face distortion illusion.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Oscillatory signatures of monitoring and anticipatory strategies for probabilistic vs deterministic cues.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- "Sentio ergo est": Unmasking the psychological realities of emotional misperception.Perception · 2025Article
- Prior Information Shapes Perceptual Confidence.Journal of cognition · 2025Article
- Viewed touch influences tactile detection by altering decision criterion.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- Anticipatory and evoked visual cortical dynamics of voluntary temporal attention.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Threat Expectation Does Not Improve Perceptual Discrimination despite Causing Heightened Priority Processing in the Frontoparietal Network.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans are more likely to report perceiving an expected than an unexpected stimulus. Influential theories have proposed that this bias arises from expectation altering the sensory signal. However, the effects of expectation can also be due to decisional criterion shifts independent of any sensory changes. In order to adjudicate between these two possibilities, we compared the behavioral effects of pre-stimulus cues (pre cues; can influence both sensory signal and decision processes) and post-stimulus cues (post cues; can only influence decision processes). Subjects judged the average orientation of a series of Gabor patches. Surprisingly, we found that post cues had a larger effect on response bias (criterion c) than pre cues. Further, pre and post cues did not differ in their effects on stimulus sensitivity (d') or the pattern of temporal or feature processing. Indeed, reverse correlation analyses showed no difference in the temporal or feature-based use of information between pre and post cues. Overall, post cues produced all of the behavioral modulations observed as a result of pre cues. These findings show that pre and post cues affect the decision through the same mechanisms and suggest that stimulus expectation alters the decision criterion but not the sensory signal itself.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.