Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41086846›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2025

Regression to the mean explains perception of action consequences.

Saskia Johnen, Eckart Zimmermann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Saskia JohnenInstitute for Experimental Psychology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf 40225, Germany.ORCID 0009-0002-8275-7471
Eckart ZimmermannInstitute for Experimental Psychology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf 40225, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftEuropean Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predictions shape the perceptual consequences of our own actions such that self-generated events appear less intense to us. However, recent studies also reported sensory enhancement of self-produced sounds. Here, we tested whether sensory attenuation and enhancement are signatures of an adaptation to the mean sound statistics. In 330 human participants, we tested the idea that predictions about upcoming sounds shift auditory processing to the average sound context. Participants produced sounds between 40 and 80 decibels (dB) and rated their loudness. Estimates of perceived loudness followed a regression to the mean sound level. The effect was similar for self-produced and passively observed but temporally predictable tones, suggesting predictability alone drives perceptual changes. We then artificially created a new mean sound level by presenting sessions in which subjects mostly (80% of trials) produced either loud (80 dB) or quiet (40 dB) tones. In loud contexts, rarely presented quiet tones were enhanced, and in quiet contexts, loud tones were attenuated. Our results challenge the dominant forward model explanation, which attributes sensory attenuation to predictive suppression of self-generated stimuli, and instead open the door for alternative explanations. Our findings point to regression towards the mean sound level as the most plausible account for predictable sounds.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionLoudness PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleSoundYoung Adultadaptation to mean sound levelsensory attenuationsensory enhancement

Identifiers

PMID41086846
PMCPMC12520771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.