Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30811381›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2019

Attention promotes the neural encoding of prediction errors.

Cooper A Smout, Matthew F Tang, Marta I Garrido, Jason B Mattingley

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Faster but less precise: expectation enhances response speed while reducing sensory fidelity.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Integrated Perceptual Decisions Rely on Parallel Evidence Accumulation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Cooper A SmoutQueensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1144-3272
Matthew F TangQueensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Marta I GarridoQueensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Jason B MattingleyQueensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdolescentAdultAttentionBrainElectroencephalographyEvoked PotentialsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhotic StimulationTime FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30811381
PMCPMC6411367

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.