Cited by 293Visual perception and processing mechanismsMultisensory perception and integrationVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Prior Expectations Evoke Stimulus Templates in the Primary Visual Cortex

Open access
Kok, Peter, Failing, Michel F., de Lange, Floris P.·2014·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

Sensory processing is strongly influenced by prior expectations. Valid expectations have been shown to lead to improvements in perception as well as in the quality of sensory representations in primary visual cortex. However, very little is known about the neural correlates of the expectations themselves. Previous studies have demonstrated increased activity in sensory cortex following the omission of an expected stimulus, yet it is unclear whether this increased activity constitutes a general surprise signal or rather has representational content. One intriguing possibility is that top–down expectation leads to the formation of a template of the expected stimulus in visual cortex, which can then be compared with subsequent bottom–up input. To test this hypothesis, we used fMRI to noninvasively measure neural activity patterns in early visual cortex of human participants during expected but omitted visual stimuli. Our results show that prior expectation of a specific visual stimulus evokes a feature-specific pattern of activity in the primary visual cortex (V1) similar to that evoked by the corresponding actual stimulus. These results are in line with the notion that prior expectation triggers the formation of specific stimulus templates to efficiently process expected sensory inputs.

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 · 10.1162/jocn_a_00562

Cites

82 of 82 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?

  • Omission responses in primary visual cortex are retinotopically specific and exhibit comparable feature specificity with responses evoked when the stimulus is presented.

    “For example, omission responses in primary visual cortex have been shown to be retinotopically specific and exhibit comparable feature specificity with the responses that are evoked when the stimulus is presented. 49”
  • PP makes opposite predictions depending on whether activity represents the transmission of sensory predictions (enhanced activity) or the integration of these predictions with bottom-up activity in prediction error units (reduced activity).

    “PP makes opposite predictions depending on whether activity represents the transmission of sensory predictions 49 , 82 , 97 , 114 , 115 (enhanced activity) or the integration of these predictions with bottom‐up activity in prediction error units (reduced activity).”

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., Failing, M. F., & de Lange, F. P.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • 1Radboud University Nijmegen
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2014-07-01
Volume
26
Issue
7
Pages
1546-1554
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2149233038
Cited by
293
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 6
FWCI
10.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
prior expectations, top-down expectations, primary visual cortex, surprise, sensory prediction, early visual processing
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Brain Mapping, Cues, Discrimination, Psychological, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motivation, Orientation, Oxygen, Photic Stimulation, Psychophysics, Reaction Time, Visual Cortex, Visual Perception, 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