ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2020
Mice tune out not in: violation of prediction drives auditory saliency.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novelty detection in an auditory oddball task on freely moving rats.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Differential optogenetic activation of the auditory midbrain in freely moving behaving mice.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2023Article
- Mice tune out not in: violation of prediction drives auditory saliency.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Successful navigation in complex acoustic scenes requires focusing on relevant sounds while ignoring irrelevant distractors. It has been argued that the ability to track stimulus statistics and generate predictions supports the choice of what to attend and what to ignore. However, the role of these predictions about future auditory events in drafting decisions remains elusive. While most psychophysical studies in humans indicate that expected stimuli are more easily detected, most work studying physiological auditory processing in animals highlights the detection of unexpected, surprising stimuli. Here, we tested whether in the mouse, high target probability results in enhanced detectability or whether detection is biased towards low-probability deviants using an auditory detection task. We implemented a probabilistic choice model to investigate whether a possible dependence on stimulus statistics arises from short-term serial correlations or from integration over longer periods. Our results demonstrate that target detectability in mice decreases with increasing probability, contrary to humans. We suggest that mice indeed track probability over a timescale of at least several minutes but do not use this information in the same way as humans do: instead of maximizing reward by focusing on high-probability targets, the saliency of a target is determined by surprise.
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.