The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Neural repetition suppression reflects fulfilled perceptual expectations
Open accessAbstract
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.
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
“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]
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
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.”
From Evaluating the neurophysiological evidence for predictive processing as a model of perception (2020) · cites this paper as [57]
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
The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception
Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., & Chun, M. M. (1997) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.17-11-04302.1997 · Cited by 7,738
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
Repetition and the brain: neural models of stimulus-specific effects
Grill-Spector, K., Henson, R., & Martin, A. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.11.006 · Cited by 2,256
A free energy principle for the brain
Friston, K., Kilner, J., & Harrison, L. (2006) · Journal of Physiology-Paris · doi:10.1016/j.jphysparis.2006.10.001 · Cited by 1,369
Object perception as Bayesian inference
Kersten, D., Mamassian, P., & Yuille, A. (2004) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142005 · Cited by 1,269
fMR-adaptation: a tool for studying the functional properties of human cortical neurons
Kalanit Grill-spector, A., & Malach, R. (2001) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/s0001-6918(01)00019-1 · Cited by 1,089
Neural mechanisms for visual memory and their role in attention
Desimone, R. (1996) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.93.24.13494 · Cited by 1,028
Representation of Perceived Object Shape by the Human Lateral Occipital Complex
Kourtzi, Z., & Kanwisher, N. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1061133 · Cited by 915
Properties and mechanisms of perceptual priming
Wiggs, C. L., & Martin, A. D. (1998) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/s0959-4388(98)80144-x · Cited by 871
Neuroimaging studies of priming
Henson, R. N. (2003) · Progress in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/s0301-0082(03)00086-8 · Cited by 770
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Summerfield, C. & Koechlin, E. Neuron published online, doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.05.21 (2008). · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Canonical Microcircuits for Predictive Coding
Bastos, A. M., Usrey, W. M., Adams, R. A., Mangun, G. R., Fries, P., & Friston, K. J. (2012) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.038 · Cited by 2,421
“The inhibitory effect of feedback connections is further supported by neuroimaging studies (Murray et al., 2002, 2006; Harrison et al., 2007; Summerfield et al., 2008, 2011; Alink et al., 2010).”
Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self
Seth, A. K. (2013) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.007 · Cited by 1,816
How Do Expectations Shape Perception?
de Lange, F. P., Heilbron, M., & Kok, P. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.06.002 · Cited by 975
Expectation (and attention) in visual cognition
Summerfield, C., & Egner, T. (2009) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.003 · Cited by 950
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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
- PMC
- PMC2747248
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- 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
