ArticleScientific reports2025
Exaggerated perception of change with greater sensory imprecision.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Stimulus statistical context sensitivity of deviant responses to auditory intensity changes.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bayesian models describe precision (inverse variance) as a key determinant of perception. However, there is limited evidence on the behavioural effects of precision. The default assumption is that higher precision leads to greater surprise (or perceived change) from otherwise equivalent sensory changes. Four human experiments investigated the influence of precision on perceived salience of systematic changes in auditory stimulus streams. Participants reported Perceived Salience of Change (PSC) in the mean value of Gaussian sequences of pure tones varying in either frequency or intensity, with sequences differing in precision. We hypothesised that PSC, for a particular absolute mean change, would positively correlate with stimulus precision. Surprisingly, we observed multiple instances of the opposite effect, where PSC was rated as higher in low-precision conditions. The conditions under which we found evidence for a counter-Bayesian strategy was under extreme values of individual stimuli within sequences, and mostly in experiments where frequency rather than intensity was the varied parameter. Further scrutiny of the specific conditions for these surprising results showed that low precision could be associated with worsened, unaffected or improved correct reporting of the direction of sound frequency change. These results raise the intriguing possibility that certain circumstances, particularly those characterised by low signal-to-noise, human perception may adopt a counter-Bayesian strategy, and we discuss the potential mechanisms, evolutionary benefits, and clinical implications for future work to further test this falsifiable hypothesis.
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.