Cited by 296Neuroscience and Music PerceptionTactile and Sensory InteractionsNeural dynamics and brain function

Brain responses in humans reveal ideal observer-like sensitivity to complex acoustic patterns

Open access
Barascud, Nicolas, Pearce, Marcus T., Griffiths, Timothy D., Friston, Karl J., Chait, Maria·2016·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: We reveal the temporal dynamics and underlying neural sources of the process by which the brain discovers complex temporal patterns in rapidly unfolding sound sequences. We demonstrate that the auditory system, supported by a network of auditory cortical, hippocampal, and frontal sources, continually scans the environment, efficiently represents complex stimulus statistics, and rapidly (close to the bounds implied by an ideal observer model) responds to emergence of regular patterns, even when these are not behaviorally relevant. Neuronal activity correlated with the predictability of ongoing auditory input, both in terms of deterministic structure and the entropy of random sequences, providing clear neurophysiological evidence of the brain's capacity to automatically encode high-order statistics in sensory input.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1508523113

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 series of studies reports that the transition from random to regular sequences of auditory stimuli is accompanied by a sustained increase in neural activity measured with MEG, EEG, and fMRI, in stark contrast to ES studies showing dampened neural responses to predictable stimuli.

    “a series of studies reporting that the transition from random to regular sequences of auditory stimuli is accompanied by a sustained increase in neural activity measured with MEG, EEG, and fMRI, 144 , 154 , 155 in stark contrast to ES studies showing dampened neural responses to predictable stimuli.”

    From Evaluating the neurophysiological evidence for predictive processing as a model of perception (2020) · cites this paper as [144]

    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
  • Overall, the evidence is consistent with PP's contention that the brain constructs dynamic representations of regularities in the sensory stream and that these representations are intimately involved in subsequent sensory processing.

    “Overall, this evidence is consistent with PP's contention that the brain constructs dynamic representations of regularities in the sensory stream and that these representations are intimately involved in subsequent sensory processing.”
  • Humans are capable of rapidly extracting regularities from the sensory environment, and there is strong evidence that the resultant expectations influence sensory processing.

    “Humans are capable of rapidly extracting regularities from the sensory environment 144 , 158 , 160 , 161 and there is strong evidence that the resultant expectations influence sensory processing.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [59]59. Hari R (1990) The neuromagnetic method in the study of the human auditory cortex. Auditory Evoked Magnetic Fields and Potentials Advances in Audiology, eds Grandori F, Hoke M, Romani G (Karger, Basel).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barascud, N., Pearce, M. T., Griffiths, T. D., Friston, K. J., & Chait, M.
Affiliations
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • Ear Institute, University College London, London WC1X 8EE, United Kingdom;
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2016-01-19
Volume
113
Issue
5
Pages
E616-25
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2255122597
Cited by
296
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 2
FWCI
13.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (093292/Z/10/Z)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
statistical learning, ideal observer, predictive coding, evidence accumulation, temporal structure of sound, predictability, entropy (information theory), primary auditory cortex, hippocampus, inferior frontal gyrus, perceptual inference
MeSH terms
Acoustics, Brain, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Psychophysics, Magnetoencephalography

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