ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Hierarchical surprise signals in naturalistic violation of expectations.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Magic and cognition: a scoping review of empirical evidence on cognitive and neural processes.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- Distinct and shared neural resources between processing of dynamic physical objects and spatial working memory.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Memory color influences conscious object perception.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2026Article
- Restoring sight in choice blindness: pupillometry and behavioral evidence of covert detection.Frontiers in psychology · 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
Surprise responses signal both high-level cognitive alerts that information is missing, and increasingly specific back-propagating error signals that allow updates in processing nodes. Studying surprise is, hence, central for cognitive neuroscience to understand internal world representations and learning. Yet, only few prior studies used naturalistic stimuli targeting our high-level understanding of the world. Here, we use magic tricks in an fMRI experiment to investigate neural responses to violations of core assumptions held by humans about the world. We showed participants naturalistic videos of three types of magic tricks, involving objects appearing, changing color, or disappearing, along with control videos without any violation of expectation. Importantly, the same videos were presented with and without prior knowledge about the tricks' explanation. Results revealed generic responses in frontal and parietal areas, together with responses specific to each of the three trick types in posterior sensory areas. A subset of these regions, the midline areas of the default mode network (DMN), showed surprise activity that depended on prior knowledge. Equally, sensory regions showed sensitivity to prior knowledge, reflected in differing decoding accuracies. These results suggest a hierarchy of surprise signals involving generic processing of violation of expectations in frontal and parietal areas with concurrent surprise signals in sensory regions that are specific to the processed features.
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.