ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026
How the brain predicts timing: distinct network hubs for predicting and evaluating auditory sensory events.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dynamic Hippocampal-Striatal Information Flow Accompanies Behavioral Strategy Transitions During Sequential Learning in Pigeons: A Preliminary Study.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Temporal prediction enhances perceptual processing by aligning neural excitability with expected sensory events. While local oscillatory mechanisms are known to support timing, less is understood about how large-scale functional brain networks dynamically coordinate predictive processes. In particular, it remains unclear how functional connectivity (FC)-the integration of information into network hubs-differs during expectation formation (prediction) versus post-target outcome evaluation, and how this varies across levels of predictability. Methods: To investigate this, we recorded electroencephalographic data (EEG) while participants performed a cued auditory target-detection task with varying temporal predictability (80% and 50%). FC was analyzed using a data-driven approach based on Normalized Directed Transfer Entropy (NDTE) applied to EEG difference waveforms between high- and low-predictability conditions, separately for the post-cue and post-target periods to distinguish prediction and evaluation phases. Results: Behaviorally, higher temporal predictability facilitated faster reaction times. Event-related potential (ERP) results revealed that implicit temporal predictability primarily modulated later evaluative processes (P3b, frontal negativity), rather than early sensory components, consistent with context updating under uncertainty. FC analyses revealed that the fronto-temporo-parietal network engaged in the prediction phase evolves into a more focal auditory-frontal circuit during the evaluation of the prediction outcomes. Discussion: Our findings highlight that temporal prediction and evaluation are supported by the dynamic interactions among multiple large-scale networks rather than by any single region or pathway, supporting both frontal-dominant and distributed integration models of predictive processing.
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.