Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40538129›Full record

ArticlePsychophysiology2025

Auditory N1 Suppression and Omission N1 Do Not Share a Common Underlying Mechanism.

Valentina Tast, Erich Schröger, Andreas Widmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychophysiology, 2025. 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. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Valentina TastWilhelm Wundt Institute for Psychology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3040-3014
Erich SchrögerWilhelm Wundt Institute for Psychology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8321-6629
Andreas WidmannWilhelm Wundt Institute for Psychology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3664-8581

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent theories describe perception as an inferential process based on internal predictive models that are adjusted by prediction violations (prediction error). Two modulations of the auditory N1 event-related brain potential component have been interpreted as reduced or enhanced prediction error for predictable sensory input: The sound-related N1 component is attenuated for self-generated sounds compared to the N1 elicited by externally generated sounds (N1 suppression). An omission-related component in the N1 time-range is elicited when the self-generated sounds are occasionally omitted (omission N1). We wanted to confirm that both N1 suppression and omission N1 are sensitive to the predictability of sound identity, as reported in the literature. We manipulated the predictability of sound identity in a self-generation paradigm in which button presses in one condition always produced the same sound or in another condition produced a sound randomly selected from a large set of sounds. Omission N1 was modulated by manipulating the predictability of sound identity but surprisingly N1 suppression was not. This contradicts previous reports, challenges prediction-related interpretations of the N1 suppression, and supports alternative explanations for N1 suppression like action-related unspecific sensory gating.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionEvoked Potentials, AuditoryAcoustic StimulationAdultElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultauditoryEEGN1 suppressionomission N1predictive codingsensory suppression

Identifiers

PMID40538129
PMCPMC12179577

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.