ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Higher-level spatial prediction in natural vision across mouse visual cortex.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The primate claustrum as a hub for precision weighting of prediction errors across the cortical hierarchy.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Rapid computation of high-level visual surprise.iScience · 2025Article
- Feature-specific inhibitory connectivity augments the accuracy of cortical representations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Feature-specific predictive processing: What's in a prediction error?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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Theories of predictive processing propose that sensory systems constantly predict incoming signals, based on spatial and temporal context. However, evidence for prediction in sensory cortex largely comes from artificial experiments using simple, highly predictable stimuli, that arguably encourage prediction. Here, we test for sensory prediction during natural scene perception. Specifically, we use deep generative modelling to quantify the spatial predictability of receptive field (RF) patches in natural images, and compared those predictability estimates to brain responses in the mouse visual cortex-while rigorously accounting for established tuning to a rich set of low-level image features and their local statistical context-in a large scale survey of high-density recordings from the Allen Institute Brain Observatory. This revealed four insights. First, cortical responses across the mouse visual system are shaped by sensory predictability, with more predictable image patches evoking weaker responses. Secondly, visual cortical neurons are primarily sensitive to the predictability of higher-level image features, even in neurons in the primary visual areas that are preferentially tuned to low-level visual features. Third, unpredictability sensitivity is stronger in the superficial layers of primary visual cortex, in line with predictive coding models. Finally, these spatial prediction effects are independent of recent experience, suggesting that they rely on long-term priors about the structure of the visual world. Together, these results suggest visual cortex might predominantly predict sensory information at higher levels of abstraction-a pattern bearing striking similarities to recent, successful techniques from artificial intelligence for predictive self-supervised learning.
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.