↓ Skip to main content

I know what is missing here: electrophysiological prediction error signals elicited by omissions of predicted ”what” but not ”when”

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 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
I know what is missing here: electrophysiological prediction error signals elicited by omissions of predicted ”what” but not ”when”
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00407
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iria SanMiguel, Katja Saupe, Erich Schröger

Abstract

In the present study we investigated the neural code of sensory predictions. Grounded on a variety of empirical findings, we set out from the proposal that sensory predictions are coded via the top-down modulation of the sensory units whose response properties match the specific characteristics of the predicted stimulus (Albright, 2012; Arnal and Giraud, 2012). From this proposal, we derive the hypothesis that when the specific physical characteristics of the predicted stimulus cannot be advanced, the sensory system should not be able to formulate such predictions, as it would lack the means to represent them. In different conditions, participant's self-paced button presses predicted either only the precise time when a random sound would be presented (random sound condition) or both the timing and the identity of the sound (single sound condition). To isolate prediction-related activity, we inspected the event-related potential (ERP) elicited by rare omissions of the sounds following the button press (see SanMiguel et al., 2013). As expected, in the single sound condition, omissions elicited a complex response in the ERP, reflecting the presence of sound prediction and the violation of this prediction. In contrast, in the random sound condition, sound omissions were not followed by any significant responses in the ERP. These results confirmed our hypothesis, and provide support to current proposals advocating that sensory systems rely on the top-down modulation of stimulus-specific sensory representations as the neural code for prediction. In light of these findings, we discuss the significance of the omission ERP as an electrophysiological marker of predictive processing and we address the paradox that no indicators of violations of temporal prediction alone were found in the present paradigm.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 145 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 32%
Researcher 20 13%
Student > Master 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 19 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 52 34%
Neuroscience 29 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 4%
Engineering 5 3%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 30 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 August 2013.
All research outputs
#18,342,133
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,051
of 7,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,043
of 280,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#764
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,129 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 280,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.