The DOI matches its Crossref record; 132 of the 133 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predictive Processing: A Canonical Cortical Computation
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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).”
From Evaluating the neurophysiological evidence for predictive processing as a model of perception (2020) · cites this paper as [41]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.”
From Evaluating the neurophysiological evidence for predictive processing as a model of perception (2020) · cites this paper as [41]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“While the message passing architecture implied by different predictive coding models has been examined in detail and partly matched with neuroanatomy and -physiology (for overviews, see Spratling, 2019; Keller & Mrsic-Flogel, 2018; Bastos et al., 2012; Shipp, 2016), and hierarchical filtering models share many similarities with predictive coding models, it is currently not clear whether the”
From The generalized Hierarchical Gaussian Filter (2026) · cites this paper as Keller & Mrsic-Flogel, 2018
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A neural substrate of prediction and reward
Schultz, W., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R. (1997) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.275.5306.1593 · Cited by 9,388
Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex
Felleman, D. J., & Van Essen, D. C. (1991) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/1.1.1 · Cited by 7,783
The hippocampus as a spatial map. Preliminary evidence from unit activity in the freely-moving rat
O'Keefe, J., & Dostrovsky, J. (1971) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/0006-8993(71)90358-1 · Cited by 6,151
Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science
Clark, A. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12000477 · Cited by 5,924 · cited 1×
“Predictive processing as a conceptual framework for understanding brain has a long tradition in the fields of computational and cognitive neuroscience, and has been elegantly summarized elsewhere (Clark, 2013; Koster-Hale and Saxe, 2013).”
Rao, R. P. N., & Ballard, D. H. (1999) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/4580 · Cited by 5,483 · cited 3×
“The idea that the brain uses an internal model to predict sensory input based on movements and past sensory experience has been formalized in several different variants: predictive coding, hierarchical temporal memory, and Bayesian inference (Friston, 2005; Hawkins and Blakeslee, 2004; Körding and Wolpert, 2004; Rao a…”
Receptive fields of single neurones in the cat's striate cortex
Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1959) · The Journal of Physiology · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1959.sp006308 · Cited by 4,653
A theory of cortical responses.
Friston, K. (2005) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1622 · Cited by 4,578
Microstructure of a spatial map in the entorhinal cortex
Hafting, T., Fyhn, M., Molden, S., Moser, M.-B., & Moser, E. I. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03721 · Cited by 4,068
An internal model for sensorimotor integration
Wolpert, D. M., Ghahramani, Z., & Jordan, M. I. (1995) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7569931 · Cited by 3,553
Preface: Cerebral Cortex Has Come of Age
Goldman, P. S., & RAKIC, P. T. (1991) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/1.1.1-a · Cited by 3,537
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
- von Helmholtz, 1867, Handbuch der physiologischen, Optik (Stuttg.)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Conscious Processing and the Global Neuronal Workspace Hypothesis
Mashour, G. A., Roelfsema, P., Changeux, J.-P., & Dehaene, S. (2020) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2020.01.026 · Cited by 1,164
“10 (Keller and Mrsic-Flogel, 2018; Kersten et al., 2004; Rao and Ballard, 1999), leading to a more precise functional interpretation of top-down broadcasting.”
BackgroundSingle-trial neural dynamics are dominated by richly varied movements
Musall, S., Kaufman, M. T., Juavinett, A., Gluf, S., & Churchland, A. K. (2019) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-019-0502-4 · Cited by 1,102
Survey of spiking in the mouse visual system reveals functional hierarchy
Siegle, J. H., Jia, X., Durand, S., Gale, S. D., Bennett, C., Graddis, N., Heller, G. R., Ramirez, T. K., Choi, H., Luviano, J., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-03171-x · Cited by 641
The neural architecture of language: Integrative modeling converges on predictive processing
Schrimpf, M., Blank, I. A., Tuckute, G., Kauf, C., Hosseini, E. A., Kanwisher, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Fedorenko, E. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2105646118 · Cited by 517
A hierarchy of linguistic predictions during natural language comprehension
Heilbron, M., Armeni, K., Schoffelen, J.-M., Hagoort, P., & de Lange, F. P. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2201968119 · Cited by 343
Metadata
- Authors
- Keller, G. B., & Mrsic-Flogel, T. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Basel (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Keller, Georg B.
- ORCID
- Keller, Georg B.
- Venue
- Neuron
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-10
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 424-435
- ISSN
- 0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6400266
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ (vor, 388 d)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-017 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-037 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-012 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-029 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-004 (stm-asf)
- 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
