Cited by 836Embodied and Extended CognitionNeural dynamics and brain functionMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Predictive Processing: A Canonical Cortical Computation

Open access
Keller, Georg B., Mrsic-Flogel, Thomas D.·2018·Neuron

Abstract

This perspective describes predictive processing as a computational framework for understanding cortical function in the context of emerging evidence, with a focus on sensory processing. We discuss how the predictive processing framework may be implemented at the level of cortical circuits and how its implementation could be falsified experimentally. Lastly, we summarize the general implications of predictive processing on cortical function in healthy and diseased states.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.10.003

Cites

132 of 132 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The GNW theory can be combined with Bayesian inference, in which GNW neurons provide a compressed high-level model of the external world, top-down signals broadcast predictions, and bottom-up signals convey sensory input and either amplify predicted signals or measure prediction error, allowing the central model to be updated and achieving a coherent multisensory model.

    “GNW neurons, lying at the top of a deep feedforward network, provide a compressed, high-level symbolic model of an aspect of the external world; top-down signals broadcast the predictions that this model makes to lower-level areas; and bottom-up signals convey sensory signals and may either amplify the signals predicted by top-down input”

    From Conscious Processing and the Global Neuronal Workspace Hypothesis (2020) · cites this paper as Keller and Mrsic-Flogel, 2018

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Critiques of the standard implementation of PP, focusing on the model's biological plausibility, have spawned numerous alternative versions with revised circuitries and diverging predictions.

    “Indeed, critiques of the standard implementation of PP, 18 focusing on the model's biological plausibility (e.g., neurons with both positive and negative firing rates), have spawned numerous alternative versions with revised circuitries and diverging predictions.”

    From Evaluating the neurophysiological evidence for predictive processing as a model of perception (2020) · cites this paper as [41]

    The section “Prediction error neurons and internal representation neurons” says that low baseline firing rates in cortical neurons make bidirectional error signalling less plausible, and proposes separate positive- and negative-error circuits. The Introduction acknowledges different predictive-processing variants. Our copy does not establish that critiques spawned numerous revised circuit models with diverging predictions. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Methodological advances in high-resolution fMRI, optogenetics, calcium imaging, and serial single-unit recordings at multiple levels of the processing hierarchy are providing powerful new opportunities to trace neural markers of hierarchical PP dynamics.

    “Although this represents a considerable challenge using conventional paradigms and neurophysiological techniques, methodological advances in high‐resolution fMRI, optogenetics, calcium imaging, and serial single‐unit recordings at multiple levels of the processing hierarchy are providing powerful new opportunities to trace neural markers of hierarchical PP dynamics.”

    From Evaluating the neurophysiological evidence for predictive processing as a model of perception (2020) · cites this paper as [41]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Omission responses do not appear easy to reconcile with feedforward models devoid of predictive influence on sensory processing.

    “Although PP can comfortably accommodate prediction error signals being elicited in the absence of any sensory input, such omission responses do not appear easy to reconcile with feedforward models that are devoid of any predictive influence on sensory processing 41 (but see Ref. 50).”
  • Top-down influences are increasingly recognized as an integral component in early sensory processing.

    “Top‐down influences are increasingly recognized as an integral component in early sensory processing, 41 , 128 , 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 but the contention that these hierarchical dynamics represent prediction error minimization has rarely been explicitly tested.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 133 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Marr D Vision MIT Press 1982

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keller, G. B., & Mrsic-Flogel, T. D.
Affiliations
University of Basel (CH)
Corresponding author
Keller, Georg B.
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-10
Volume
100
Issue
2
Pages
424-435
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2898208057
Cited by
836
References
133
Citations by year
2026: 120 · 2025: 128 · 2024: 139 · 2023: 152 · 2022: 95 · 2021: 85 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 1
FWCI
6.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Gatsby Charitable Foundation (GAT3212, GAT3361)
  • Wellcome (090843/E/09/Z)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
predictive processing, cortical circuits, sensory processing, cortical function, falsifiability, computational neuroscience, neural circuits, brain disorders
MeSH terms
Animals, Computer Simulation, Humans, Models, Neurological, Sensation, Neocortex

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review