Cited by 692Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Neural repetition suppression reflects fulfilled perceptual expectations

Open access
Summerfield, Christopher, Trittschuh, Emily H, Monti, Jim M, Mesulam, M-Marsel, Egner, Tobias·2008·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

Stimulus-evoked neural activity is attenuated on stimulus repetition (repetition suppression), a phenomenon that is attributed to largely automatic processes in sensory neurons. By manipulating the likelihood of stimulus repetition, we found that repetition suppression in the human brain was reduced when stimulus repetitions were improbable (and thus, unexpected). Our data suggest that repetition suppression reflects a relative reduction in top-down perceptual 'prediction error' when processing an expected, compared with an unexpected, stimulus.

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 · 10.1038/nn.2163

Cites

15 of 15 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?

  • Expectation suppression is present even when low-level adaptation is controlled for and has been consistently found across modalities such as vision and audition.

    “This phenomenon, termed 'expectation suppression' [64,68,71], is present even when low-level adaptation is controlled for and has been consistently found across modalities such as vision [65][66][67][72][73][74] and audition [68,69,75,76].”

    From How Do Expectations Shape Perception? (2018) · cites this paper as [71]

    The Abstract and face-experiment passages (page unavailable) report that repetition suppression in visual cortex varied with the expected probability of face repetition, supporting an expectation-related effect beyond repetition alone. The study examines vision, not audition, so it does not establish the claim that the effect has been consistently found across both modalities. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • All over cortex, there is less spiking and smaller BOLD responses when a stimulus is repeated.

    “All over cortex, there is less spiking and smaller blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) responses when a stimulus is repeated (4–9).”

    From Layer and rhythm specificity for predictive routing (2020) · cites this paper as [9]

    The paper reports reduced fMRI responses to repeated faces in the fusiform face area (Abstract section; page not provided). It does not report spiking measurements, and its whole-brain analysis says other higher-level visual regions showed no repetition suppression. It therefore does not support the claim that both effects occur all over cortex. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Summerfield et al. found expected repetitions yielded substantially smaller BOLD responses in FFA.

    “An influential early study by Summerfield et al. 57 sought to control for the effects of adaptation by comparing blood oxygen level—dependent (BOLD) activity in the fusiform face area (FFA) of human participants in response to stimulus repetitions that were expected versus unexpected, and found that expected repetitions yielded substantially smaller BOLD responses.”

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

Authors
Summerfield, C., Trittschuh, E. H., Monti, J. M., Mesulam, M.-M., & Egner, T.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Egner, Tobias
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2008-08-01
Volume
11
Issue
9
Pages
1004-1006
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W1966342514
Cited by
692
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 69 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 38
FWCI
11.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS30863, R01NS030863)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR025741)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
stimulus predictability, top-down processing, prediction error, perceptual expectations, stimulus repetition, sensory processing
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Oxygen, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Repression, Psychology, Time Factors, Likelihood Functions, Young Adult

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