ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
Violations of physical and psychological expectations in the human adult brain.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinct and shared neural resources between processing of dynamic physical objects and spatial working memory.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- A large-scale heterogeneous 3D magnetic resonance brain imaging dataset for self-supervised learning.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Hemispheric disparity theory: a dual-system framework for consciousness.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Decoding predicted future states from the brain's "physics engine".Science advances · 2025Article
- Hierarchical surprise signals in naturalistic violation of expectations.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- BrainAgeNeXt: Advancing brain age modeling for individuals with multiple sclerosis.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
After seeing one solid object apparently passing through another, or a person taking the long route to a destination when a shortcut was available, human adults classify those events as surprising. When tested on these events in violation-of-expectation (VOE) experiments, infants look longer at the same outcomes, relative to similar but expected outcomes. What cognitive processes underlie these judgments from adults, and perhaps infants' sustained attention to these events? As one approach to test this question, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to scan the brains of human adults (total N = 49, 22 female, mean age of 26 years) while they viewed stimuli that were originally designed to test for physical and psychological expectations in infants. We examined non-mutually exclusive candidates for the processes underlying the VOE effect, including domain-general processes, like visual prediction error and curiosity, and domain-specific processes, like prediction error with respect to distinctively physical and psychological expectations (objects are solid; agents behave rationally). Early visual regions did not distinguish between expected and unexpected events from either domain. By contrast, multiple demand regions, involved in goal-directed attention, responded more to unexpected events in both domains, providing evidence for domain-general goal-directed attention as a mechanism for VOE. Left supramarginal gyrus (LSMG) was engaged during physical prediction and responded preferentially to unexpected events from the physical domain, providing evidence for domain-specific physical prediction error. Thus, in adult brains, violations of physical and psychological expectations involve domain-specific, and domain-general, though not purely visual, computations.
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.