ArticlePLoS biology2019
Attention promotes the neural encoding of prediction errors.
Article in PLoS biology, 2019. 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 58 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
58 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- What is the effect of bodily illusions on corticomotoneuronal excitability? A systematic review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Prediction and Prediction Error in Autism: A Meta-Analysis of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Results.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2026Article
- Preserving Harmonic Structure in FPVS-Oddball: A Two-Dimensional Cluster-Based Permutation Approach.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- Faster but less precise: expectation enhances response speed while reducing sensory fidelity.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Effects of Statistical Learning on Stimulus Detection Speed Reflect Attention Rather Than Representational Changes.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- Voluntary Attention Selectively Modulates Omission Responses.Human brain mapping · 2026Article
- Early electrophysiological responses reflect precision-weighted prediction errors to face features.PloS one · 2026Article
- Conscious vision: investigating visual hallucination awareness in Lewy body disease.Brain communications · 2026Article
- Article
- Load-dependent processing of prediction violations in task-irrelevant space.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Collaborative rule learning promotes interbrain information alignment.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Circuit-level modeling of prediction error computation of multi-dimensional features in voluntary actions.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2025Article
- Expectation dynamically modulates the representational time course of objects and locations.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Early maladaptive schemas from child maltreatment in depression and psychotherapeutic remediation: a predictive coding framework.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Review
- Multimodal evidence challenges the effectiveness of probabilistic cueing for establishing sensory expectations.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Confidence and second-order errors in cortical circuits.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Integrated Perceptual Decisions Rely on Parallel Evidence Accumulation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Attention spotlight in V1-based cortico-cortical interactions in human visual hierarchy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The encoding of sensory information in the human brain is thought to be optimised by two principal processes: 'prediction' uses stored information to guide the interpretation of forthcoming sensory events, and 'attention' prioritizes these events according to their behavioural relevance. Despite the ubiquitous contributions of attention and prediction to various aspects of perception and cognition, it remains unknown how they interact to modulate information processing in the brain. A recent extension of predictive coding theory suggests that attention optimises the expected precision of predictions by modulating the synaptic gain of prediction error units. Because prediction errors code for the difference between predictions and sensory signals, this model would suggest that attention increases the selectivity for mismatch information in the neural response to a surprising stimulus. Alternative predictive coding models propose that attention increases the activity of prediction (or 'representation') neurons and would therefore suggest that attention and prediction synergistically modulate selectivity for 'feature information' in the brain. Here, we applied forward encoding models to neural activity recorded via electroencephalography (EEG) as human observers performed a simple visual task to test for the effect of attention on both mismatch and feature information in the neural response to surprising stimuli. Participants attended or ignored a periodic stream of gratings, the orientations of which could be either predictable, surprising, or unpredictable. We found that surprising stimuli evoked neural responses that were encoded according to the difference between predicted and observed stimulus features, and that attention facilitated the encoding of this type of information in the brain. These findings advance our understanding of how attention and prediction modulate information processing in the brain, as well as support the theory that attention optimises precision expectations during hierarchical inference by increasing the gain of prediction errors.
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.