ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
Intention-based predictive information modulates auditory deviance processing.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 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
- How the brain predicts timing: distinct network hubs for predicting and evaluating auditory sensory events.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Markov chains as a proxy for the predictive memory representations underlying mismatch negativity.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The human brain is highly responsive to (deviant) sounds violating an auditory regularity. Respective brain responses are usually investigated in situations when the sounds were produced by the experimenter. Acknowledging that humans also actively produce sounds, the present event-related potential study tested for differences in the brain responses to deviants that were produced by the listeners by pressing one of two buttons. In one condition, deviants were unpredictable with respect to the button-sound association. In another condition, deviants were predictable with high validity yielding correctly predicted deviants and incorrectly predicted (mispredicted) deviants. Temporal principal component analysis revealed deviant-specific N1 enhancement, mismatch negativity (MMN) and P3a. N1 enhancements were highly similar for each deviant type, indicating that the underlying neural mechanism is not affected by intention-based expectation about the self-produced forthcoming sound. The MMN was abolished for predictable deviants, suggesting that the intention-based prediction for a deviant can overwrite the prediction derived from the auditory regularity (predicting a standard). The P3a was present for each deviant type but was largest for mispredicted deviants. It is argued that the processes underlying P3a not only evaluate the deviant with respect to the fact that it violates an auditory regularity but also with respect to the intended sensorial effect of an action. Overall, our results specify current theories of auditory predictive processing, as they reveal that intention-based predictions exert different effects on different deviance-specific brain responses.
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.