ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2024
Enhanced electrophysiological responses to explicitly predicted and pre-imagined inputs, with confirmation from online decoding with neuro-feedback.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhanced electrophysiological responses to explicitly predicted and pre-imagined inputs, with confirmation from online decoding with neuro-feedback.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neural responses to sensory inputs can scale with the likelihood of encountering the input. This is consistent with the predictive coding framework, in that the human brain is expected to be less responsive to predicted inputs. Typically, however, prediction is not explicitly measured. It is inferred from the probability of encountering an event. When an input is explicitly predicted, responses to predicted inputs can be enhanced. Here, we ask if this effect can be ascribed to a generic priming effect, from pre-cogitating about one of two possible inputs. Consistent with this, we find that P300s (a relatively late event-related potential measured with electroencephalography) are greater for explicitly predicted audio and visual inputs, and that this effect cannot be distinguished from a priming effect from pre-imagining audio or visual presentations. Evidence indicates that participants engaged in pre-imagining presentations, as we were able to decode online what type of presentation (audio or visual) they were imagining with a high success rate (approx. 73%), and we encouraged compliance with neuro-feedback regarding this success rate. Our data confirm that human cortex can be more responsive to inputs that have been subject to pre-cogitation-including explicit predictions. This highlights that while anticipatory processes can reduce responding to likely inputs, they can also enhance responding to explicitly predicted inputs.
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.