ArticleScientific reports2021
Intention-based and sensory-based predictions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Action Intention Versus Action-Effect Intention on Auditory Prediction Error Signals.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Neural Correlates of Dynamic Predictions and Prediction Errors in Response to Unexpected Silence and Sound.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Exploring the internal forward model: action-effect prediction and attention in sensorimotor processing.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- Sensory suppression and increased neuromodulation during actions disrupt memory encoding of unpredictable self-initiated stimuli.Psychophysiology · 2023Article
- Markov chains as a proxy for the predictive memory representations underlying mismatch negativity.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Actions do not clearly impact auditory memory.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Intention-based predictive information modulates auditory deviance processing.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We inhabit a continuously changing world, where the ability to anticipate future states of the environment is critical for adaptation. Anticipation can be achieved by learning about the causal or temporal relationship between sensory events, as well as by learning to act on the environment to produce an intended effect. Together, sensory-based and intention-based predictions provide the flexibility needed to successfully adapt. Yet it is currently unknown whether the two sources of information are processed independently to form separate predictions, or are combined into a common prediction. To investigate this, we ran an experiment in which the final tone of two possible four-tone sequences could be predicted from the preceding tones in the sequence and/or from the participants' intention to trigger that final tone. This tone could be congruent with both sensory-based and intention-based predictions, incongruent with both, or congruent with one while incongruent with the other. Trials where predictions were incongruent with each other yielded similar prediction error responses irrespectively of the violated prediction, indicating that both predictions were formulated and coexisted simultaneously. The violation of intention-based predictions yielded late additional error responses, suggesting that those violations underwent further differential processing which the violations of sensory-based predictions did not receive.
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.