ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2025
The myth of the Bayesian brain.
Review in European journal of applied physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning reveals a neurocomputational mechanism predicting depression risk in adolescents.Science advances · 2026Article
- The equilibrium point hypothesis revisited: why threshold control does not explain human movement.Experimental brain research · 2026Review
- The illusion of internal models in biological movement.European journal of applied physiology · 2025Review
- Pathophysiology of functional neurological disorder for the general neurologist.BMJ neurology open · 2025Review
- Minimization of prediction errors during cerebral embryogenesis and the emergence of agency.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Bayesian brain hypothesis-the idea that neural systems implement or approximate Bayesian inference-has become a dominant framework in cognitive neuroscience over the past two decades. While mathematically elegant and conceptually unifying, this paper argues that the hypothesis occupies an ambiguous territory between useful metaphor and testable, biologically plausible mechanistic explanation. We critically examine the key claims of the Bayesian brain hypothesis, highlighting issues of unfalsifiability, biological implausibility, and inconsistent empirical support. The framework's remarkable flexibility in accommodating diverse findings raises concerns about its explanatory power, as models can often be adjusted post hoc to fit virtually any data pattern. We contrast the Bayesian approach with alternative frameworks, including dynamic systems theory, ecological psychology, and embodied cognition, which conceptualize prediction and adaptive behavior without recourse to probabilistic inference. Despite its limitations, the Bayesian brain hypothesis persists-driven less by empirical grounding than by its mathematical elegance, metaphorical power, and institutional momentum.
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.