Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42415221›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2026

How Precise Is Predictive Coding for Things We Hear? Mismatch Negativity With Shepard Tones.

Urte Roeber, Robert P O'Shea

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of 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

2 authors.

Urte RoeberWilhelm Wundt Institute for Psychology, BioCog: Cognitive and Biological Psychology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6631-5828
Robert P O'SheaWilhelm Wundt Institute for Psychology, BioCog: Cognitive and Biological Psychology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

Murdoch University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predictive coding is a theory that each hierarchical level of the nervous system constructs a model from bottom-up information (such as sensory inputs) and from top-down information (such as expectations and reliability of past information) and then tests new inputs against the model. If the new inputs match the model, then no change in it is required. If not, then extra brain processing is required to update the model. We tested the precision of such a model in the auditory system by using Shepard tones arranged into a discrete Shepard scale-a series of notes, each comprising sine tones of different amplitudes and one octave apart, and with each tone separated from the next by one semitone, yielding a scale that ascends or descends forever. We unpredictably and occasionally replaced an expected tone in the scale by one that was two thirds of a semitone less, one third of a semitone less, one third of a semitone more, or two thirds of a semitone more. We measured the electrical activity of 20 participants' brains with 128 scalp electrodes (electroencephalography, EEG) while the tones were delivered to their ears. We found that event-related potentials (ERPs) from 180-220 ms to these unpredictable tones were more negative the farther they were from the predicted note and more negative for tones that were less than the expected note. We conclude that the predictive model for the kind of regularity in a discrete Shepard scale has a sensitivity to tones less than one third of a semitone and is more sensitive to undershoots than to overshoots.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionBrainEvoked Potentials, AuditoryAcoustic StimulationAdultElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adultauditionevent‐related potentials (ERPs)mismatch negativity (MMN)predictive codingShepard tones

Identifiers

PMID42415221
PMCPMC13342450

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.