Cited by 340Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural dynamics and brain functionMultisensory perception and integration

Prior expectations induce prestimulus sensory templates

Open access
Kok, Peter, Mostert, Pim, de Lange, Floris P.·2017·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Significance: The way that we perceive the world is partly shaped by what we expect to see at any given moment. However, it is unclear how this process is neurally implemented. Recently, it has been proposed that the brain generates stimulus templates in sensory cortex to preempt expected inputs. Here, we provide evidence that a representation of the expected stimulus is present in the neural signal shortly before it is presented, showing that expectations can indeed induce the preactivation of stimulus templates. Importantly, these expectation signals resembled the neural signal evoked by an actually presented stimulus, suggesting that expectations induce similar patterns of activations in visual cortex as sensory stimuli.

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.1705652114

Cites

68 of 68 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?

  • In several instances, RS/ES effects observed with one noninvasive recording method were absent in another despite otherwise identical paradigms.

    “in several instances, RS/ES effects that were observed with one noninvasive recording method were absent in another despite using otherwise identical paradigms.”

    From Evaluating the neurophysiological evidence for predictive processing as a model of perception (2020) · cites this paper as [53]

    The Discussion (page not provided) contrasts expectation suppression reported in earlier fMRI studies with its absence in this MEG study, including studies using an almost identical paradigm. It does not establish several cross-method instances, address repetition suppression, or say the paradigms were otherwise identical. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Another possibility is that expectations have an anticipatory effect and sensitize representations even before stimulus onset.

    “Another possibility is that expectations have an anticipatory effect and sensitize representations even before stimulus onset.Empirical support for such forward-looking perceptual predictions comes from electrophysiological reports of stimulus-specific baseline shifts before stimulus onset [67,97], from time-locked responses to unexpectedly omitted stimuli [69,98], and from predictive preactiv”

    From How Do Expectations Shape Perception? (2018) · cites this paper as [99]

  • Although the overall spatial configuration of K.C.'s sketch map was intact, he included fewer streets and landmarks than did control participants.

    “Although the overall spatial configuration of K.C.'s sketch map was intact, he included fewer streets and landmarks than did control participants.”

    From From cognitive maps to spatial schemas (2023) · cites this paper as [213]

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
Kok, P., Mostert, P., & de Lange, F. P.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, 6525 EN Nijmegen, The Netherlands;
Corresponding author
Kok, Peter
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2017-09-12
Volume
114
Issue
39
Pages
10473-10478
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2949604146
Cited by
340
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 2
FWCI
14.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Rubicon 446-15-004, VIDI 452-13-016)
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation (220020373)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
top-down expectations, pre-activation, sensory cortex, top-down modulation, multivariate decoding, task-relevant features
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Photic Stimulation, Somatosensory Cortex, Visual Cortex, Visual Perception, 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