Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42022746›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026

How the brain predicts timing: distinct network hubs for predicting and evaluating auditory sensory events.

Péter Nagy, Petra Kovács, Ádám Boncz, Orsolya Szalárdy, Robert Baumgartner, Karolina Ignatiadis, István Winkler, Brigitta Tóth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

8 authors.

Péter NagyInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, HUN-REN Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Budapest, Hungary.
Petra KovácsInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, HUN-REN Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Budapest, Hungary.
Ádám BonczInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, HUN-REN Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Budapest, Hungary.
Orsolya SzalárdyInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, HUN-REN Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Budapest, Hungary.
Robert BaumgartnerAcoustics Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria.
Karolina IgnatiadisAcoustics Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria.
István WinklerInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, HUN-REN Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Budapest, Hungary.
Brigitta TóthInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, HUN-REN Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

auditory perceptionbrain network hubsEEGfunctional connectivityNormalized Directed Transfer Entropy (NDTE)predictive processingsensory evaluationtemporal prediction

Identifiers

PMID42022746
PMCPMC13096066

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.