ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Duet model unifies diverse neuroscience experimental findings on predictive coding.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The brain continuously generates predictions about the external world. When stimulus X is presented repeatedly, the brain predicts that the next one is also X. A deviant stimulus Y elicits a stronger sensory response than the baseline, reflecting the amplification of an unexpected stimulus. Here, we introduce the duet predictive coding model, a minimal and biologically plausible framework in which neurons encode both positive and negative prediction errors. This model reproduces neural responses observed in vision and audition across diverse predictive coding paradigms, particularly omission. Our proposed circuit mechanism predicts (1) neurons tuned to negative prediction errors in the oddball paradigm, supported by experimental evidence in mice; (2) the magnitude of unexpected responses quantitatively depends on the dissimilarity between standard and deviant stimuli and diminishes with increasing interstimulus interval. Our findings suggest that the brain's deviance detection relies on dual-error computation, offering a unifying explanation across seemingly disparate experimental protocols.
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.