↓ Skip to main content

The function and failure of sensory predictions

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The function and failure of sensory predictions
Published in
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, April 2018
DOI 10.1111/nyas.13686
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sonia Bansal, Judith M. Ford, Miriam Spering

Abstract

Humans and other primates are equipped with neural mechanisms that allow them to automatically make predictions about future events, facilitating processing of expected sensations and actions. Prediction-driven control and monitoring of perceptual and motor acts are vital to normal cognitive functioning. This review provides an overview of corollary discharge mechanisms involved in predictions across sensory modalities and discusses consequences of predictive coding for cognition and behavior. Converging evidence now links impairments in corollary discharge mechanisms to neuropsychiatric symptoms such as hallucinations and delusions. We review studies supporting a prediction-failure hypothesis of perceptual and cognitive disturbances. We also outline neural correlates underlying prediction function and failure, highlighting similarities across the visual, auditory, and somatosensory systems. In linking basic psychophysical and psychophysiological evidence of visual, auditory, and somatosensory prediction failures to neuropsychiatric symptoms, our review furthers our understanding of disease mechanisms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 144 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 15%
Student > Master 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 40 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 37 26%
Psychology 31 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 51 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2018.
All research outputs
#4,901,546
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
#2,129
of 11,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,240
of 330,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
#54
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,519 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.