CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 262Memory and Neural MechanismsNeural dynamics and brain functionEmbodied and Extended Cognition

Redefining the role of limbic areas in cortical processing

Open access
Chanes, Lorena, Barrett, Lisa Feldman·2016·Trends in Cognitive Sciences
DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2015.11.005PMC PMC4780414
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There is increasing evidence that the brain actively constructs action and perception using past experience. In this paper, we propose that the direction of information flow along gradients of laminar differentiation provides important insight on the role of limbic cortices in cortical processing. Cortical limbic areas, with a simple laminar structure (e.g., no or rudimentary layer IV), send 'feedback' projections to lower level better laminated areas. We propose that this 'feedback' functions as predictions that drive processing throughout the cerebral cortex. This hypothesis has the potential to provide a unifying framework for an increasing number of proposals that use predictive coding to explain a myriad of neural processes and disorders, and has important implications for hypotheses about consciousness.

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.tics.2015.11.005

Cites

120 of 120 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?

  • Recent research suggests that interoception is at the core of the brain's internal model and arises from the process of allostasis.

    “Recent research suggests that interoception is at the core of the brain’s internal model and arises from the process of allostasis”

    From The theory of constructed emotion: an active inference account of interoception and categorization (2016) · cites this paper as Chanes and Barrett, 2016

    In “Predictive coding within the laminar architecture of corticocortical connections” (page unavailable), the paper describes limbic cortices sending predictions to interoceptive cortex and to structures that regulate bodily systems. It also says the brain’s generative model is tailored to allostatic needs. But it places limbic cortices—not interoception—at the core of its predictive architecture, and does not say that interoception arises from allostasis. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Brain functions are not constrained to distinct sets of neurons but have degeneracy, meaning that engagement of a different set of brain areas can produce the same outcome.

    “This complexity allows that brain functions are not constrained to distinct sets of neurons but rather have degeneracy (many to one functions) [122][123][124] : engagement of a different set of brain areas (activation patterns) can produce the same outcome.125,126”

    From A new science of emotion: implications for functional neurological disorder (2022) · cites this paper as [123]

    In “Implications > Integrating different functional domains and disorders” (page unavailable), the paper proposes a shared neural substrate for phenomena whose circuitry is usually assumed to be distinct. That supports the rejection of strictly separate circuitry, but it describes shared circuitry across different phenomena, not degeneracy in which different sets of brain areas produce the same outcome. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Based on past experiences that share features of equivalence with the present, the brain uses concepts that were relevant then, with all possible futures and associated action plans, to deal with and understand current incoming sensory signals.

    “Based on past experiences that share features of equivalence with the present, our brain uses the concepts (i.e.abstract mental representations) that were relevant then, with all the possible futures and associated action plans to deal with and understand the current incoming sensory signals.”

    From A new science of emotion: implications for functional neurological disorder (2022) · cites this paper as [123]

    The sections “A general organizational framework for predictive coding in the cerebral cortex” and “Limbic cortices in sensory systems” say that past experience shapes predictions used to interpret incoming sensory signals, and that perception and action are coupled. They do not describe selecting concepts from equivalent past experiences or considering all possible futures and associated action plans. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The principles of interoceptive inference rest primarily on the view that perceptual inference-whether about the world or about the body-is likely to involve a common computational architecture.

    “While there is ample circumstantial that fits comfortably with this framework (see [9,10,54,56], for reviews), the principles of interoceptive inference rest primarily on the view that perceptual inference—whether about the world or about the body—is likely to involve a common computational architecture.”

    From Active interoceptive inference and the emotional brain (2016) · cites this paper as [56]

  • Predictive processing to guide allostasis is rooted in the brain's cortical cytoarchitecture.

    “Predictive processing to guide the performance of allostasis is rooted in the brain's cortical cytoarchitecture.”

    From A new science of emotion: implications for functional neurological disorder (2022) · cites this paper as [123]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Chanes, L., & Barrett, L. F.
Affiliations
Northeastern University (US)
Corresponding author
Barrett, Lisa Feldman
ORCID
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
96-106
ISSN
1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.tics.2015.11.005
PMC
PMC4780414
OpenAlex
W2216403645
Cited by
259
References
119
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG030311)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R21HD076164)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
Keywords
limbic cortex, feedback projections, predictive coding, cortical processing, layer 4, consciousness, perception and action, information flow
MeSH terms
Animals, Cerebral Cortex, Consciousness, Humans, Limbic System, Neural Pathways, Perception

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