Cited by 299Neuroscience and Music PerceptionNeural dynamics and brain functionMultisensory perception and integration

Expectation and Attention in Hierarchical Auditory Prediction

Open access
Chennu, S., Noreika, V., Gueorguiev, D., Blenkmann, A., Kochen, S., Ibanez, A., Owen, A. M., Bekinschtein, T. A.·2013·Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Hierarchical predictive coding suggests that attention in humans emerges from increased precision in probabilistic inference, whereas expectation biases attention in favor of contextually anticipated stimuli. We test these notions within auditory perception by independently manipulating top-down expectation and attentional precision alongside bottom-up stimulus predictability. Our findings support an integrative interpretation of commonly observed electrophysiological signatures of neurodynamics, namely mismatch negativity (MMN), P300, and contingent negative variation (CNV), as manifestations along successive levels of predictive complexity. Early first-level processing indexed by the MMN was sensitive to stimulus predictability: here, attentional precision enhanced early responses, but explicit top-down expectation diminished it. This pattern was in contrast to later, second-level processing indexed by the P300: although sensitive to the degree of predictability, responses at this level were contingent on attentional engagement and in fact sharpened by top-down expectation. At the highest level, the drift of the CNV was a fine-grained marker of top-down expectation itself. Source reconstruction of high-density EEG, supported by intracranial recordings, implicated temporal and frontal regions differentially active at early and late levels. The cortical generators of the CNV suggested that it might be involved in facilitating the consolidation of context-salient stimuli into conscious perception. These results provide convergent empirical support to promising recent accounts of attention and expectation in predictive coding.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.0114-13.2013

Cites

63 of 63 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?

  • Empirical evidence is now emerging that shows how prior expectations shape behavioural and neuronal signatures of perception.

    “Empirical evidence is now emerging that shows how prior expectations shape behavioural and neuronal signatures of perception, with recent studies in vision [30–32] and audition [33] providing excellent examples.”

    From Active interoceptive inference and the emotional brain (2016) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Discussion reports that top-down expectation altered auditory ERP responses, including the MMN and P300, so this paper is an example of expectations shaping neuronal signatures of auditory perception. The Methods describe participants’ counting and reporting tasks, but the passages found do not report that expectation changed a behavioral measure of perception. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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. [63]63. 11205a • J. Neurosci., July 3, 2013 • 33(27):11194 -11205

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chennu, S., Noreika, V., Gueorguiev, D., Blenkmann, A., Kochen, S., Ibanez, A., Owen, A. M., & Bekinschtein, T. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
  • Hospital Ramos Mejía (AR)
  • Western University (CA)
  • Favaloro University (AR)
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2013-07-03
Volume
33
Issue
27
Pages
11194-11205
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2123677515
Cited by
299
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 3
FWCI
11.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation
  • Wellcome Trust (WT093811MA)
  • Canada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
  • Medical Research Council (1130920, U1055.01.002.00001.01)
  • Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico (1130920)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
hierarchical predictive coding, top-down expectations, auditory attention, mismatch negativity, P300, contingent negative variation, stimulus predictability, EEG source reconstruction, intracranial recordings, conscious perception, auditory cortex, frontal cortex
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Attention, Auditory Perception, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Female, Forecasting, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Young Adult, Anticipation, Psychological

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