Literature DB >> 22047964

Attention reverses the effect of prediction in silencing sensory signals.

Peter Kok1, Dobromir Rahnev, Janneke F M Jehee, Hakwan C Lau, Floris P de Lange.   

Abstract

Predictive coding models suggest that predicted sensory signals are attenuated (silencing of prediction error). These models, though influential, are challenged by the fact that prediction sometimes seems to enhance rather than reduce sensory signals, as in the case of attentional cueing experiments. One possible explanation is that in these experiments, prediction (i.e., stimulus probability) is confounded with attention (i.e., task relevance), which is known to boost rather than reduce sensory signal. However, recent theoretical work on predictive coding inspires an alternative hypothesis and suggests that attention and prediction operate synergistically to improve the precision of perceptual inference. This model posits that attention leads to heightened weighting of sensory evidence, thereby reversing the sensory silencing by prediction. Here, we factorially manipulated attention and prediction in a functional magnetic resonance imaging study and distinguished between these 2 hypotheses. Our results support a predictive coding model wherein attention reverses the sensory attenuation of predicted signals.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22047964     DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhr310

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cereb Cortex        ISSN: 1047-3211            Impact factor:   5.357


  115 in total

1.  Contextual factors multiplex to control multisensory processes.

Authors:  Beatriz R Sarmiento; Pawel J Matusz; Daniel Sanabria; Micah M Murray
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 2.  Attention and prediction in human audition: a lesson from cognitive psychophysiology.

Authors:  Erich Schröger; Anna Marzecová; Iria SanMiguel
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.386

Review 3.  Subjective inflation: phenomenology's get-rich-quick scheme.

Authors:  J D Knotts; Brian Odegaard; Hakwan Lau; David Rosenthal
Journal:  Curr Opin Psychol       Date:  2018-11-14

4.  Predictive cues reduce but do not eliminate intrinsic response bias.

Authors:  Mingjia Hu; Dobromir Rahnev
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2019-06-21

5.  Attention sharpens the distinction between expected and unexpected percepts in the visual brain.

Authors:  Jiefeng Jiang; Christopher Summerfield; Tobias Egner
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 6.  Theory of mind: a neural prediction problem.

Authors:  Jorie Koster-Hale; Rebecca Saxe
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 17.173

7.  Suppressed Sensory Response to Predictable Object Stimuli throughout the Ventral Visual Stream.

Authors:  David Richter; Matthias Ekman; Floris P de Lange
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-07-20       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Spatial attention, precision, and Bayesian inference: a study of saccadic response speed.

Authors:  Simone Vossel; Christoph Mathys; Jean Daunizeau; Markus Bauer; Jon Driver; Karl J Friston; Klaas E Stephan
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2013-01-14       Impact factor: 5.357

9.  Surmising synchrony of sound and sight: Factors explaining variance of audiovisual integration in hurdling, tap dancing and drumming.

Authors:  Nina Heins; Jennifer Pomp; Daniel S Kluger; Stefan Vinbrüx; Ima Trempler; Axel Kohler; Katja Kornysheva; Karen Zentgraf; Markus Raab; Ricarda I Schubotz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Directing Voluntary Temporal Attention Increases Fixational Stability.

Authors:  Rachel N Denison; Shlomit Yuval-Greenberg; Marisa Carrasco
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 6.167

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.