ArticleeLife2026
Dissociable dynamic effects of expectation during statistical learning.
Article in eLife, 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.
- Evidence for early and late prediction error-associated ERP responses during probabilistic cueing.iScience · 2026Article
- Learning regularities in noise engages both neural predictive activity and representational changes.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Faster but less precise: expectation enhances response speed while reducing sensory fidelity.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Predictive Processing Over the Course of Aging: Multiple Timescales of Effective Connectivity.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
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 is thought to optimise behaviour by generating predictions based on learned statistical regularities. Predictive processing seemingly explains expectation suppression (ES), the attenuation of neural activity in response to expected stimuli. However, the mechanisms behind ES are unclear, with conflicting evidence for alternative models. Sharpening models propose that expectations suppress neurons away from the expected stimulus, increasing the signal-to-noise ratio and boosting decoding for expected stimuli. In contrast, dampening models posit that expectations suppress neurons that are tuned to the expected stimuli, reducing overall response magnitude and decoding accuracy. The opposing process theory (OPT) suggests that both processes occur at different time points, namely that initial sharpening is followed by later dampening of the neural representations of the expected stimulus. Here we test this theory and shed light on the dynamics of expectation effects, both at single-trial level and over time. Thirty-one participants completed a statistical learning task in which a 'leading' image from one category predicted a 'trailing' image from a different category. Multivariate EEG analyses decoded stimulus information related to the trailing category. Within-trial, expectation increased decoding accuracy at early latencies and decreased it at later latencies, in line with OPT. However, across trials, stimulus expectation decreased decoding accuracy in initial trials and increased it in later trials. We theorise that these dissociable dynamics of expectation effects within and across trials support hierarchical learning mechanisms. While within-trial results support the OPT, across-trial results suggest that sharpening and dampening effects emerge at distinct stages of associative 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.