Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38104604›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2024

Perceptual oddities: assessing the relationship between film editing and prediction processes.

Alice Drew, Salvador Soto-Faraco

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Rethinking Naturalistic Movie Neuroimaging Through Film Form.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Aesthetics and predictive processing: grounds and prospects of a fruitful encounter.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
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

2 authors.

Alice DrewMultisensory Research Group, Centre for Brain and Cognition, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Carrer de Ramon Trias Fargas, 25-27, 08005 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4219-2560
Salvador Soto-FaracoMultisensory Research Group, Centre for Brain and Cognition, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Carrer de Ramon Trias Fargas, 25-27, 08005 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4799-3762

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During film viewing, humans parse sequences of individual shots into larger narrative structures, often weaving transitions at edit points into an apparently seamless and continuous flow. Editing helps filmmakers manipulate visual transitions to induce feelings of fluency/disfluency, tension/relief, curiosity, expectation and several emotional responses. We propose that the perceptual dynamics induced by film editing can be captured by a predictive processing (PP) framework. We hypothesise that visual discontinuities at edit points produce discrepancies between anticipated and actual sensory input, leading to prediction error. Further, we propose that the magnitude of prediction error depends on the predictability of each shot within the narrative flow, and lay out an account based on conflict monitoring. We test this hypothesis in two empirical studies measuring electroencephalography (EEG) during passive viewing of film excerpts, as well as behavioural responses during an active edit detection task. We report the neural and behavioural modulations at editing boundaries across three levels of narrative depth, showing greater modulations for edits spanning less predictable, deeper narrative transitions. Overall, our contribution lays the groundwork for understanding film editing from a PP perspective. This article is part of the theme issue 'Art, aesthetics and predictive processing: theoretical and empirical perspectivess'.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyMotion PicturesHumanscognitive conflictelectroencephalographyfilm editingneurocinematicspredictive processingtheta oscillations

Identifiers

PMID38104604
PMCPMC10725757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.