↓ Skip to main content

The Bayesian brain: Phantom percepts resolve sensory uncertainty

Overview of attention for article published in Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
3 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
342 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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.
Article details
Title
The Bayesian brain: Phantom percepts resolve sensory uncertainty
Published in
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, April 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.04.001
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Phantom perceptions arise almost universally in people who sustain sensory deafferentation, and in multiple sensory domains. The question arises 'why' the brain creates these false percepts in the absence of an external stimulus? The model proposed answers this question by stating that our brain works in a Bayesian way, and that its main function is to reduce environmental uncertainty, based on the free-energy principle, which has been proposed as a universal principle governing adaptive brain function and structure. The Bayesian brain can be conceptualized as a probability machine that constantly makes predictions about the world and then updates them based on what it receives from the senses. The free-energy principle states that the brain must minimize its Shannonian free-energy, i.e. must reduce by the process of perception its uncertainty (its prediction errors) about its environment. As completely predictable stimuli do not reduce uncertainty, they are not worthwhile of conscious processing. Unpredictable things on the other hand are not to be ignored, because it is crucial to experience them to update our understanding of the environment. Deafferentation leads to topographically restricted prediction errors based on temporal or spatial incongruity. This leads to an increase in topographically restricted uncertainty, which should be adaptively addressed by plastic repair mechanisms in the respective sensory cortex or via (para)hippocampal involvement. Neuroanatomically, filling in as a compensation for missing information also activates the anterior cingulate and insula, areas also involved in salience, stress and essential for stimulus detection. Associated with sensory cortex hyperactivity and decreased inhibition or map plasticity this will result in the perception of the false information created by the deafferented sensory areas, as a way to reduce increased topographically restricted uncertainty associated with the deafferentation. In conclusion, the Bayesian updating of knowledge via active sensory exploration of the environment, driven by the Shannonian free-energy principle, provides an explanation for the generation of phantom percepts, as a way to reduce uncertainty, to make sense of the world.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 342 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 323 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 68 20%
Researcher 62 18%
Student > Master 50 15%
Student > Bachelor 20 6%
Other 16 5%
Other 65 19%
Unknown 61 18%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 67 20%
Neuroscience 52 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 40 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 10%
Engineering 15 4%
Other 52 15%
Unknown 83 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 25 February 2020.
All research outputs
#8,222,122
of 31,211,351 outputs
Outputs from Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
#2,532
of 4,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,266
of 191,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
#12
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,211,351 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 191,432 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.