ArticleBiological psychiatry global open science2026
Prediction and Prediction Error in Autism: A Meta-Analysis of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Results.
Article in Biological psychiatry global open science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In autism spectrum condition (ASC), altered priors/predictions or prediction errors have been hypothesized to increase the influence of bottom-up sensory input, relative to top-down prior knowledge. Such alterations could account for several autistic features, but their empirical basis is unclear. In neurotypical (NT) individuals, multiple neuroimaging meta-analyses have aimed to outline domain-general prediction networks of the brain. However, there has not been a similar meta-analysis in autism. Methods: We performed a literature search for functional magnetic resonance imaging and magnetoencephalography studies with autistic participants. The contrasts that explicitly or implicitly involved the processing of priors/predictions and prediction errors were selected. Contrasts were divided into those that reported stronger activation in ASC compared with NT groups (ASC > NT; 8 contrasts; 139 ASC, 150 NT) and vice versa (NT > ASC; 13 contrasts; 261 ASC, 289 NT). The convergence of differences between the groups was then tested using activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis. We also identified 37 contrasts without significant group differences. Results: ASC > NT did not result in significant convergence. NT > ASC converged in a cluster in the medial frontal gyrus/cingulate gyrus. Conclusions: We found converging NT > ASC activation differences in an area associated with error monitoring and uncertainty estimation. Our results are generally consistent with notions of altered predictions or prediction errors in autism, pointing to differences at high levels of the information-processing hierarchy. However, we recommend a cautious interpretation, given the limited number of available contrasts and the high proportion of null results.
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.