ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2024
Multiple Concurrent Predictions Inform Prediction Error in the Human Auditory Pathway.
Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2024. 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.
- Distinct Roles of Deep and Superficial Cortical Layers in Tone Prediction, Comparison, and Adaptation in Human Auditory Cortices.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Rethinking hierarchy: the auditory system as an integrated cortical-subcortical network.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2026Review
- Cortical-subcortical interactions underlie processing of auditory predictions measured with 7T fMRI.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
- Two Prediction Error Systems in the Nonlemniscal Inferior Colliculus: "Spectral" and "Nonspectral".The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
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
Abstract
The key assumption of the predictive coding framework is that internal representations are used to generate predictions on how the sensory input will look like in the immediate future. These predictions are tested against the actual input by the so-called prediction error units, which encode the residuals of the predictions. What happens to prediction errors, however, if predictions drawn by different stages of the sensory hierarchy contradict each other? To answer this question, we conducted two fMRI experiments while female and male human participants listened to sequences of sounds: pure tones in the first experiment and frequency-modulated sweeps in the second experiment. In both experiments, we used repetition to induce predictions based on stimulus statistics (stats-informed predictions) and abstract rules disclosed in the task instructions to induce an orthogonal set of (task-informed) predictions. We tested three alternative scenarios: neural responses in the auditory sensory pathway encode prediction error with respect to (1) the stats-informed predictions, (2) the task-informed predictions, or (3) a combination of both. Results showed that neural populations in all recorded regions (bilateral inferior colliculus, medial geniculate body, and primary and secondary auditory cortices) encode prediction error with respect to a combination of the two orthogonal sets of predictions. The findings suggest that predictive coding exploits the non-linear architecture of the auditory pathway for the transmission of predictions. Such non-linear transmission of predictions might be crucial for the predictive coding of complex auditory signals like speech.
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.