Cited by 135Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesEmbodied and Extended CognitionNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Meta-analysis of human prediction error for incentives, perception, cognition, and action

Open access
Corlett, Philip R., Mollick, Jessica A., Kober, Hedy·2022·Neuropsychopharmacology

Abstract

Prediction errors (PEs) are a keystone for computational neuroscience. Their association with midbrain neural firing has been confirmed across species and has inspired the construction of artificial intelligence that can outperform humans. However, there is still much to learn. Here, we leverage the wealth of human PE data acquired in the functional neuroimaging setting in service of a deeper understanding, using an MKDA (multi-level kernel-based density) meta-analysis. Studies were identified with Google Scholar, and we included studies with healthy adult participants that reported activation coordinates corresponding to PEs published between 1999-2018. Across 264 PE studies that have focused on reward, punishment, action, cognition, and perception, consistent with domain-general theoretical models of prediction error we found midbrain PE signals during cognitive and reward learning tasks, and an insula PE signal for perceptual, social, cognitive, and reward prediction errors. There was evidence for domain-specific error signals--in the visual hierarchy during visual perception, and the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex during social inference. We assessed bias following prior neuroimaging meta-analyses and used family-wise error correction for multiple comparisons. This organization of computation by region will be invaluable in building and testing mechanistic models of cognitive function and dysfunction in machines, humans, and other animals. Limitations include small sample sizes and ROI masking in some included studies, which we addressed by weighting each study by sample size, and directly comparing whole brain vs. ROI-based results.

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/s41386-021-01264-3

Cites

71 of 71 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?

  • A recent meta-analysis revealed evidence for domain specificity of prediction error signals, with midbrain prediction error signals associated with cognitive and reward learning tasks and insula prediction error signals associated with a wide range including perceptual, cognitive, and social prediction errors.

    “A recent meta-analysis revealed evidence for domain specificity of these error signals with midbrain prediction error signals being associated with cognitive and reward learning tasks, while insula prediction error signals were associated with a wide range including perceptual, cognitive, and social prediction errors”

    From Are prediction error modifications domain specific in autism but domain general in ADHD? (2025) · cites this paper as Corlett et al., 2022

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A recent meta-analysis highlights a consistent correspondence between specific brain areas and the domain-specificity of tasks.

    “a recent meta-analysis highlights a consistent corre­ spondence between specific brain areas and the domain-specificity of the tasks (Corlett et al., 2022).”

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
Corlett, P. R., Mollick, J. A., & Kober, H.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Corlett, Philip R.
Venue
Neuropsychopharmacology
Published
2022-01-11
Volume
47
Issue
7
Pages
1339-1349
ISSN
  • 0893-133X (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-634X
OpenAlex
W4206618816
Cited by
135
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 1
FWCI
3.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuropsychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of Mental Health (R21MH116258, R01MH12887)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01 DA043690)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
prediction error, midbrain, insula, reward learning, punishment, visual perception, visual hierarchy, social inference, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, cognitive control, functional neuroimaging, computational neuroscience
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Cognition, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Motivation, Perception, Reward

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