ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Expectation generation and its effect on subsequent pain and visual perception.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A large-scale heterogeneous 3D magnetic resonance brain imaging dataset for self-supervised learning.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Temporal predictions shape somatosensory perception.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Social information creates self-fulfilling prophecies in judgments of pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bayesian accounts of perception, such as predictive processing, suggest that perceptions integrate expectations and sensory experience, and thus assimilate to expected values. Furthermore, more precise expectations should have stronger influences on perception. We tested these hypotheses using a within-subject paradigm with social cues consisting of what participants were told were ratings from 10 prior participants, but which were actually constructed to independently manipulate the cue mean, variance (precision), and skewness independent of the actual stimulus intensity delivered. Forty-five participants reported their expectations regarding the painfulness of thermal stimuli or the visual contrast of flickering checkerboards. In a second session, similar (sham) cues were each followed by either a noxious thermal or a visual stimulus. Perceptions assimilated to cue-based expectations in both modalities, but precision effects were modality-specific: more precise cues enhanced assimilation in visual perception only, while higher uncertainty slightly increased reported pain. fMRI analysis revealed that the cues affected higher-level affective and cognitive systems--including assimilation to the cue mean in the Stimulus Intensity-Independent Pain Signature-1 (SIIPS-1), a neuromarker of endogenous pain processing--and in the nucleus accumbens. There were no predictive cue effects on the Neurological Pain Signature (NPS), a neuromarker of nociceptive pain. Region of interest analyses showed activity consistent with aversive prediction-error-like encoding in the periaqueductal gray during pain perception, but no cue or prediction error-related responses in early perceptual processing systems. Furthermore, behavioral and computational models of the expectation session revealed that expectations construction was biased towards extreme cue values in both modalities, and towards low-pain cues specifically. These findings suggest that predictive processing theories should be extended with mechanisms such as selective attention to outliers, and that expectation generation and its perceptual effects vary by sensory modality and primarily influence higher-level processes rather than early perception, at least when cues are not reinforced.
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.