Cited by 1,257Motor Control and AdaptationEmbodied and Extended CognitionVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Motor prediction

Open access
Wolpert, Daniel M, Flanagan, J.Randall·2001·Current Biology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0960-9822(01)00432-8

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 cerebellum computes sensory prediction errors, which relate to the error between the sensory outcome and its prediction.

    “It thus appears that the cerebellum computes sensory prediction errors (sPE), which relate to the error between the sensory outcome and its prediction (Wolpert and Flanagan, 2001).”
  • Comparator models suggest that action initiation generates a copy of the efferent motor signal, which is passed to a forward model to compute corollary discharge, and then to a comparator that compares the predicted outcome with actual sensory inputs.

    “Comparator models suggest that action initiation generates a copy of the efferent motor signal, which is passed to a specialized brain module (a forward model) to compute ‘corollary discharge’; i.e., a predicted sensory state if the motor command were enacted. This signal is then passed to another module (a comparator), which compares the predicted outcome with actual sensory (e.g., proprioceptive”

    From From cognitivism to autopoiesis: towards a computational framework for the embodied mind (2018) · cites this paper as Wolpert and Flanagan 2001

  • The ability to predict future sensory and embodied states is essential for the efficient control of perception and action.

    “The ability to predict future (sensory and embodied) states is essential for the efficient control of perception and action.”

    From From cognitivism to autopoiesis: towards a computational framework for the embodied mind (2018) · cites this paper as Wolpert and Flanagan 2001

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wolpert, D. M., & Flanagan, J. R.
Affiliations
  • UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
  • Queen's University (CA)
Corresponding author
Wolpert, Daniel M
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-09
Volume
11
Issue
18
Pages
R729-R732
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4246051408
Cited by
1,257
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 71 · 2025: 94 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 76 · 2019: 76 · 2018: 77 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 62 · 2012: 39
FWCI
6.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  • Human Frontier Science Program
  • Wellcome Trust
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
motor prediction, efference copy, Helmholtz, visual localization, gaze position, retinal position, sensorimotor control, eye movements, central nervous system
MeSH terms
Central Nervous System, Cognition, Humans, Models, Neurological, Motor Skills, Psychomotor Performance, Visual 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