ArticlePsychophysiology2025
Predicted Sensory Modality Determines the Timing and Topographies of Omitted Stimulus Potentials.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2025. 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.
- Predicted Sensory Modality Determines the Timing and Topographies of Omitted Stimulus Potentials.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is thought that our brains actively predict what will happen next in the environment, but it remains unclear how specific the prediction of an upcoming event is. This study investigated whether the prediction about the sensory modality of the upcoming stimulus modulates neural responses to unexpected omissions of stimuli. Previous research has reported that the peak latencies of omitted stimulus potentials (OSPs) are shorter in the auditory modality than in the visual modality when tested in separate blocks. In this study, we presented auditory and visual stimuli in a fixed alternating pattern to examine whether modality-specific OSPs occur even within a single block. Participants (N = 33) were asked to press a mouse button at a constant interval of 1 s. Each button press triggered either an auditory or visual stimulus, and these were presented twice in an alternating pattern (A, A, V, V, A, A, etc.). The stimuli were omitted in 12% of the trials. This method ensured each type of omission (of either auditory or visual stimuli) to be preceded equally often by either an auditory or a visual stimulus, thereby controlling for late event-related potential components of the preceding stimulus, if any. The results showed that auditory OSPs had shorter peak latencies than visual OSPs and that their scalp topographies differed; auditory OSPs had more anterior and central distributions than visual OSPs. These findings suggest that OSPs occur in a modality-specific manner according to the predicted sensory modality of the upcoming stimulus.
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.