Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37503725›Full record

ReviewBrain : a journal of neurology2023

Predictive coding and stochastic resonance as fundamental principles of auditory phantom perception.

Achim Schilling, William Sedley, Richard Gerum, Claus Metzner, Konstantin Tziridis, Andreas Maier, Holger Schulze, Fan-Gang Zeng, Karl J Friston, Patrick Krauss

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain : a journal of neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Tinnitus.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. What Do Mismatch Negativity (MMN) Responses Tell Us About Tinnitus?Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Astrocytes and Tinnitus.Brain sciences · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Achim SchillingNeuroscience Lab, University Hospital Erlangen, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9543-305X
William SedleyTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University Medical School, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK.
Richard GerumCognitive Computational Neuroscience Group, University Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91058 Erlangen, Germany.
Claus MetznerNeuroscience Lab, University Hospital Erlangen, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Konstantin TziridisNeuroscience Lab, University Hospital Erlangen, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Andreas MaierPattern Recognition Lab, University Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91058 Erlangen, Germany.
Holger SchulzeNeuroscience Lab, University Hospital Erlangen, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Fan-Gang ZengCenter for Hearing Research, Departments of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Biomedical Engineering, Cognitive Sciences, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
Karl J FristonWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7984-8909
Patrick KraussNeuroscience Lab, University Hospital Erlangen, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen · DENewcastle University · GBUniversity of California, Irvine · USWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging · GB

Funding

University of California Health Participation in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C)UL1TR001414 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI COOPER, DAN M, VILAIN, ERIC J. · 2015 to 2023
$35.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001414Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mechanistic insight is achieved only when experiments are employed to test formal or computational models. Furthermore, in analogy to lesion studies, phantom perception may serve as a vehicle to understand the fundamental processing principles underlying healthy auditory perception. With a special focus on tinnitus-as the prime example of auditory phantom perception-we review recent work at the intersection of artificial intelligence, psychology and neuroscience. In particular, we discuss why everyone with tinnitus suffers from (at least hidden) hearing loss, but not everyone with hearing loss suffers from tinnitus. We argue that intrinsic neural noise is generated and amplified along the auditory pathway as a compensatory mechanism to restore normal hearing based on adaptive stochastic resonance. The neural noise increase can then be misinterpreted as auditory input and perceived as tinnitus. This mechanism can be formalized in the Bayesian brain framework, where the percept (posterior) assimilates a prior prediction (brain's expectations) and likelihood (bottom-up neural signal). A higher mean and lower variance (i.e. enhanced precision) of the likelihood shifts the posterior, evincing a misinterpretation of sensory evidence, which may be further confounded by plastic changes in the brain that underwrite prior predictions. Hence, two fundamental processing principles provide the most explanatory power for the emergence of auditory phantom perceptions: predictive coding as a top-down and adaptive stochastic resonance as a complementary bottom-up mechanism. We conclude that both principles also play a crucial role in healthy auditory perception. Finally, in the context of neuroscience-inspired artificial intelligence, both processing principles may serve to improve contemporary machine learning techniques.

Indexed as

Hearing LossTinnitusArtificial IntelligenceAuditory PathwaysAuditory PerceptionBayes TheoremHumansartificial intelligenceBayesian brainphantom perceptionpredictive codingstochastic resonancetinnitus

Identifiers

PMID37503725
PMCPMC10690027
OpenAlexW4385331364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.