The DOI matches its Crossref record; 228 of the 228 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Attention and prediction in human audition: a lesson from cognitive psychophysiology
Open accessAbstract
Attention is a hypothetical mechanism in the service of perception that facilitates the processing of relevant information and inhibits the processing of irrelevant information. Prediction is a hypothetical mechanism in the service of perception that considers prior information when interpreting the sensorial input. Although both (attention and prediction) aid perception, they are rarely considered together. Auditory attention typically yields enhanced brain activity, whereas auditory prediction often results in attenuated brain responses. However, when strongly predicted sounds are omitted, brain responses to silence resemble those elicited by sounds. Studies jointly investigating attention and prediction revealed that these different mechanisms may interact, e.g. attention may magnify the processing differences between predicted and unpredicted sounds. Following the predictive coding theory, we suggest that prediction relates to predictions sent down from predictive models housed in higher levels of the processing hierarchy to lower levels and attention refers to gain modulation of the prediction error signal sent up to the higher level. As predictions encode contents and confidence in the sensory data, and as gain can be modulated by the intention of the listener and by the predictability of the input, various possibilities for interactions between attention and prediction can be unfolded. From this perspective, the traditional distinction between bottom‐up/exogenous and top‐down/endogenous driven attention can be revisited and the classic concepts of attentional gain and attentional trace can be integrated.
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.
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
James, W. (1913) · Henry Holt and Company eBooks · doi:10.1037/11059-000 · Cited by 25,226
Posner, M. I. (1980) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/00335558008248231 · Cited by 9,670 · cited 2×
“In line with the idea that attention can be understood as the optimization of the precision of prediction errors, Feldman & Friston (2010) employed computational modeling to simulate electrophysiological and psychophysical findings from the Posner spatial cueing task (Posner, 1980).”
MethodThe free-energy principle: a unified brain theory?
Friston, K. (2010) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2787 · Cited by 8,120 · cited 11×
“Because the system’s goal is to minimize prediction error (Friston, 2010), large prediction error signals force reconfigurations of the internal model,”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialUpdating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b
Polich, J. (2007) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019 · Cited by 7,919
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 · cited 2×
“ERP, event-related potential; fMRI, functional magnetic resonance imaging; MEG, magnetoencephalography; MMN, mismatch negativity; PN, processing negativity; STG, superior temporal gyrus.”
BackgroundRao, R. P. N., & Ballard, D. H. (1999) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/4580 · Cited by 5,483 · cited 1×
“The predictions are compared with sensory input and the difference expresses prediction error, which, in turn, is used to update the model and keep it faithful (Rao & Ballard, 1999).”
Method(2016) · Interpersonal Communication · doi:10.4324/9781315506173-8 · Cited by 4,693
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
The principles of psychology, Vol I.
James, W. (1890) · doi:10.1037/10538-000 · Cited by 4,514
Broadbent, D. E. (1958) · doi:10.1037/10037-000 · Cited by 4,337
Cited by
Great Expectations: Is there Evidence for Predictive Coding in Auditory Cortex?
Heilbron, M., & Chait, M. (2018) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.07.061 · Cited by 428
Attenuation of responses to self-generated sounds in auditory cortical neurons
Rummell, B. P., Klee, J. L., & Sigurdsson, T. (2016) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1564-16.2016 · Cited by 103
Role of the cerebellum in adaptation to delayed action effects
Cao, L., Veniero, D., Thut, G., & Gross, J. (2017) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.06.074 · Cited by 43
The processing of mispredicted and unpredicted sensory inputs interact differently with attention
Hsu, Y.-F., Hämäläinen, J. A., & Waszak, F. (2018) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.01.034 · Cited by 15
Marais, A.-L., & Roche-Labarbe, N. (2025) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2025.101519 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Schröger, E., Marzecová, A., & SanMiguel, I.
- Venue
- European Journal of Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-03
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 641-664
- ISSN
- 0953-816X (ISSN-L)
- 1460-9568
- OpenAlex
- W2068780404
- Cited by
- 262
- References
- 228
- FWCI
- 11.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Attention and prediction in human audition: a lesson from cognitive psychophysiology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/ejn.12816
- The paper
- Schröger, E., Marzecová, A., & SanMiguel, I. (2015). Attention and prediction in human audition: a lesson from cognitive psychophysiology. European Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12816
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.