Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38351803›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2024

Enhanced electrophysiological responses to explicitly predicted and pre-imagined inputs, with confirmation from online decoding with neuro-feedback.

Derek H Arnold, Felicity Electricity, Blake W Saurels

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Derek H ArnoldPerception Lab, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1027-6222
Felicity ElectricityPerception Lab, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Blake W SaurelsPerception Lab, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

Australian Research Council
6 · The paper itself

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

BrainElectroencephalographyBrain MappingFeedbackHumansProbabilityelectroencephalographyneural respondingneuro-feedbackonline decodingpredictionpredictive coding

Identifiers

PMID38351803
PMCPMC10865004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.