Cited by 145Face Recognition and PerceptionVisual perception and processing mechanismsMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Human Scalp Electroencephalography Reveals that Repetition Suppression Varies with Expectation

Open access
Summerfield, Christopher, Wyart, Valentin, Johnen, Vanessa Mareike, de Gardelle, Vincent·2011·Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Abstract

Repetitions of a sensory event elicit lower levels of brain activity than its initial presentation ("repetition suppression," RS). According to one view, RS depends on the biophysics of neuronal discharge, and is thus an automatic consequence of stimulus processing ("fatigue" model). Another account suggests that RS depends on the statistical structure of the environment, and occurs when repeated stimuli are less surprising than novel stimuli ("surprise reduction" model). In support of the latter view, functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have shown that RS is modulated by the local probability of repetition. However, single-cell recordings from macaque inferotemporal area (IT) have failed to replicate this finding. Here, we recorded scalp electroencephalography from human participants viewing pairs of faces that repeated (face(1)-face(1)) or alternated (face(1)-face(2)), in contexts in which repetitions were expected or unexpected. As previously described, event-related potentials in the range of 100-400 ms recorded at posterior electrode sites and at the vertex differed between repetitions and alternations. Critically, at central electrodes, we observed that the difference between repeated and alternating stimuli was attenuated when repetitions were unexpected, as predicted by the surprise reduction model. These findings demonstrate that the modulation of RS by repetition probability is observable using direct neural recording methods in human participants, and that it occurs relatively late (>300 ms) post-stimulus. Finally, we found that theta-band (4-8 Hz) spectral power over central electrodes varied with the three-way interaction between of repetition, expectation, and the rate of change of the environment, consistent with recent reports that frontal theta may be a hallmark of learning processes originating in the anterior cingulate and medial prefrontal cortex.

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 · 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00067

Cites

79 of 79 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?

  • Expectations can arise from arbitrary stimulus pairings, predictive cues, or higher order regularities.

    “Similarly, expectations can arise from arbitrary stimulus pairings, 90 predictive cues, or higher order regularities.”

    From Evaluating the neurophysiological evidence for predictive processing as a model of perception (2020) · cites this paper as [66]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) describes expectations based on a high-order statistical pattern learned over an extended stimulation history. The Results, under Single-trial analyses (page unavailable), say expectations were not overtly signaled, and the cited passages do not establish arbitrary stimulus pairings or predictive cues as sources of expectation. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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: 2

  1. Burgess A. P. Gruzelier J. H. (1999). “Methodological advances in the analysis of event-related desynchronisation data: reliability and robust analysis,” in Event-Related Desynchronisation (ERD), Handbook of Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, eds Pfurtscheller G. Lopes Da Silva F. H. (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 139– 160
  2. Mumford D. (1992). On the computational architecture of the neocortex. II. The role of cortico-cortical loops. Biol. Cybern. 66, 241– 251 10.1007/BF00198477 1540675 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Summerfield, C., Wyart, V., Johnen, V. M., & de Gardelle, V.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Summerfield, Christopher
Venue
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Published
2011
Volume
5
Pages
67-67
ISSN
1662-5161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1969232538
Cited by
145
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
FWCI
5.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (WT092646AIA)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
repetition suppression, expectations, event-related potentials, face perception, frontal theta, learning

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