ArticleNature communications2021
Neural integration underlying naturalistic prediction flexibly adapts to varying sensory input rate.
Article in Nature communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neural mechanisms of time-forward predictions for naturalistic auditory tone sequences.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Repeated Viewing of a Film Clip Changes Event Timescales in the Brain.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Discovery, Interruption, and Updating of Auditory Regularities in Memory: Evidence from Low-Frequency Brain Dynamics in Human MEG.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Repeated Viewing of a Narrative Movie Changes Event Timescales in The Brain.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Neural Mechanisms Determining the Duration of Task-free, Self-paced Visual Perception.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2024Article
- Predictive neural representations of naturalistic dynamic input.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Article
- 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prediction of future sensory input based on past sensory information is essential for organisms to effectively adapt their behavior in dynamic environments. Humans successfully predict future stimuli in various natural settings. Yet, it remains elusive how the brain achieves effective prediction despite enormous variations in sensory input rate, which directly affect how fast sensory information can accumulate. We presented participants with acoustic sequences capturing temporal statistical regularities prevalent in nature and investigated neural mechanisms underlying predictive computation using MEG. By parametrically manipulating sequence presentation speed, we tested two hypotheses: neural prediction relies on integrating past sensory information over fixed time periods or fixed amounts of information. We demonstrate that across halved and doubled presentation speeds, predictive information in neural activity stems from integration over fixed amounts of information. Our findings reveal the neural mechanisms enabling humans to robustly predict dynamic stimuli in natural environments despite large sensory input rate variations.
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.