ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Neural and autonomic predictors of future listening errors.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Some of the most demanding perceptual tasks require sustained vigilance to detect and classify infrequent, unpredictable targets within continuous sensory streams. Here, we designed a sustained listening task to ask whether cardinal classes of perceptual errors (misclassifications, miss, and false alarms) were associated with variability in event-related processing, ongoing cortical state, and autonomic arousal. We recorded 64-channel scalp EEG and pupil diameter in 39 adults while they monitored streams of random tone pips for occasional target sequences of repeating tones. A target-evoked negativity varied systematically with listening outcome: it was largest for correct reports, reduced for misclassifications, and nearly absent for misses. Notably, these differences emerged within the first 500 ms of the target sequence, before the information needed to classify its length was available. Related negativities also accompanied false alarms despite the absence of a target. By contrast, neural synchronization to acoustic cues in individual tone pips did not differ across perceptual outcomes. We then looked further back in time, to the 1 s period preceding target onset, and identified additional signatures of forthcoming misclassifications and false alarms in pupil diameter and EEG aperiodic slopes. Models evaluated with leave-one-subject-out cross-validation showed that baseline state measures and event-related negativity amplitude provided complementary information about the probability and type of forthcoming errors. These findings link perceptual errors during sustained listening to higher-order cortical and arousal-state dynamics rather than fluctuant encoding of bottom-up acoustic cues.
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.