Prior probability modulates anticipatory activity in category-specific areas
Open accessAbstract
Bayesian models are currently a dominant framework for describing human information processing. However, it is not clear yet how major tenets of this framework can be translated to brain processes. In this study, we addressed the neural underpinning of prior probability and its effect on anticipatory activity in category-specific areas. Before fMRI scanning, participants were trained in two behavioral sessions to learn the prior probability and correct order of visual events within a sequence. The events of each sequence included two different presentations of a geometric shape and one picture of either a house or a face, which appeared with either a high or a low likelihood. Each sequence was preceded by a cue that gave participants probabilistic information about which items to expect next. This allowed examining cue-related anticipatory modulation of activity as a function of prior probability in category-specific areas (fusiform face area and parahippocampal place area). Our findings show that activity in the fusiform face area was higher when faces had a higher prior probability. The finding of a difference between levels of expectations is consistent with graded, probabilistically modulated activity, but the data do not rule out the alternative explanation of a categorical neural response. Importantly, these differences were only visible during anticipation, and vanished at the time of stimulus presentation, calling for a functional distinction when considering the effects of prior probability. Finally, there were no anticipatory effects for houses in the parahippocampal place area, suggesting sensitivity to stimulus material when looking at effects of prediction.
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
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.
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?
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).”
From Evaluating the neurophysiological evidence for predictive processing as a model of perception (2020) · cites this paper as [82]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 24
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [6]6. Bar, M., Aminoff, E., & Schacter, D. (2008). Scenes unseen: The parahippocampal cortex subserves contextual associations, not scenes per se. Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 8539-8544.
- [8]8. de Gardelle, V., Waczuzk, M., Egner, T., & Summerfield, C. (2013). Concurrent representations of prediction and prediction error signals in visual cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 23(9), 2235-2244.
- [36]36. Summerfield, C., & Koechlin, E. (2008). A neural representation of prior information during perceptual inference. Neuron, 59(2), 336-347.
- [42]42. Wyart, V., Nobre, A. C., & Summerfield, C. (2012). Dissociable influ- ences of signal probability and relevance on visual signal detection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(9), 3593-3598.
- Authors
- Trapp, S., Lepsien, J., Kotz, S. A., & Bar, M.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- Bar-Ilan University (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Trapp, Sabrina
- Venue
- Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
- Published
- 2015-09-08
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 135-144
- ISSN
- 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-135X
- OpenAlex
- W1833863727
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 1.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (2268/6-1, DFG-KO 2268/6-1, KO2268/6-1)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Keywords
- prior probability, Bayesian model, anticipatory activity, fusiform face area, parahippocampal place area, probabilistic forecasting, expectations, face perception, place perception
- MeSH terms
- Brain Mapping, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Probability, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Visual Cortex, Visual Pathways
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