Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42857606›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026

The phantastic organ: predictive processing in the brain.

Karl Friston, Thomas Parr

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Karl FristonQueen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Thomas ParrNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroscience has witnessed a curious inversion over the past decades, with a switch from views of the brain as abstracting information from sensory input to a view of the brain as a constructive organ, actively generating explanations for - and sampling - the sensorium. Perhaps this inversion is not strange, but a reversion to the 'facts of perception' as laid out by Helmholtz. His enduring view of perception as inference - to the best explanation - now dominates the neurosciences in the form of the Bayesian brain paradigm and the Free Energy Principle. This review follows the story from Helmholtz's unconscious inference to modern day active inference. In particular, it uses the history of predictive coding - and how it has been generalized over the years - to furnish a framework that brings theory and empirical study in close contact, through generating mechanistic (anatomical and physiological) hypotheses about sense-making in the brain.

Indexed as

active inferenceactive learningBayesian brainpredictive codingpredictive processing

Identifiers

PMID42857606
PMCPMC13651242

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.