ArticleiScience2026
The effects of action-based predictions in early visual cortex.
Article in iScience, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Voluntary action typically results in reduced sensitivity to sensory action outcomes. The forward model theory proposes that this is due to neural suppression. However, this theory has recently been challenged by the pre-activation account, sharpening, and opposing process theory. In this fMRI study, we compared these theories by using univariate and multivariate analyses. Participants performed a visual orientation discrimination task on two sequential gratings, which were presented automatically (passive condition) or triggered by button press (active condition). Decoding of predicted stimulus orientation from early visual cortex activity prior to stimulus presentation was significantly above chance in both active and passive conditions. During stimulus presentation, actively generated stimuli elicited larger blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) responses. However, both decoding accuracy and the timing of the BOLD responses did not differ between conditions. These results differ from the forward model's predicted sensory attenuation, the pre-activation account's earlier BOLD response, and the enhanced precision of the sharpening hypothesis. Instead, they mostly fit the opposing process theory, which posits pre-activation in both conditions. However, the stronger BOLD response for actively generated stimuli is not predicted by any existing theory, implicating additional mechanisms, such as heightened attention or motor-related enhancement.
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.