ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Prediction-based sensory attenuation is related to prediction-based motor attenuation.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. 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.
- Multimodal evidence challenges the effectiveness of probabilistic cueing for establishing sensory expectations.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When sensory inputs can be predicted by an organism's own actions or external environmental cues, neural activity is often attenuated compared with sensory inputs that are unpredictable. We have recently demonstrated that attenuation to predictable inputs is also observed when stimulating the motor system with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Akin to sensory attenuation, the motor system is less responsive to predictable TMS compared with unpredicted TMS. However, it remains unclear whether these motor prediction signals are related to, or even dependent on, sensory prediction. Using a two-coil single-pulse TMS setup to target distinct brain regions, we arranged different warning cues to predict different regions of stimulation and measured motor attenuation using motor-evoked potentials. We found that expecting TMS over the motor cortex produced stronger attenuation than expecting TMS over a non-motor region, confirming that the attenuation observed is directly linked to activation of the motor system and not due to the sensory by-products of TMS. Using combined TMS-EEG, we measured motor attenuation with motor-evoked potentials, and simultaneously measured sensory attenuation to the sound of TMS (a coil "click") with auditory-evoked potentials. We found that both motor and auditory potentials were attenuated to predictable TMS compared with unpredictable TMS. Critically, the magnitude of auditory attenuation predicted the magnitude of motor attenuation. Our results reveal a close correspondence between prediction processing in the sensory and motor systems. The findings provide evidence consistent with predictive coding being governed by domain-general properties across distinct neural systems, suggesting there could be common mechanisms responsible for different forms of predictive 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.