CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 108Embodied and Extended CognitionNeural dynamics and brain functionMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Predictive Coding: a Theoretical and Experimental Review

Open access
Millidge, Beren, Seth, Anil, Buckley, Christopher L·2021·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2107.12979arXiv 2107.12979
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Predictive coding offers a potentially unifying account of cortical function -- postulating that the core function of the brain is to minimize prediction errors with respect to a generative model of the world. The theory is closely related to the Bayesian brain framework and, over the last two decades, has gained substantial influence in the fields of theoretical and cognitive neuroscience. A large body of research has arisen based on both empirically testing improved and extended theoretical and mathematical models of predictive coding, as well as in evaluating their potential biological plausibility for implementation in the brain and the concrete neurophysiological and psychological predictions made by the theory. Despite this enduring popularity, however, no comprehensive review of predictive coding theory, and especially of recent developments in this field, exists. Here, we provide a comprehensive review both of the core mathematical structure and logic of predictive coding, thus complementing recent tutorials in the literature. We also review a wide range of classic and recent work within the framework, ranging from the neurobiologically realistic microcircuits that could implement predictive coding, to the close relationship between predictive coding and the widely-used backpropagation of error algorithm, as well as surveying the close relationships between predictive coding and modern machine learning techniques.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2107.12979

Cites

159 of 159 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?

  • In the linear case, learning under precision-weighted errors is formally equivalent to natural gradient descent.

    “in the linear case, learning under precision-weighted errors is formally equivalent to naturalgradient descent (see Millidge et al. [2021] Appendix B).”

    From Closed-form predictive coding via hierarchical Gaussian filters (2026) · cites this paper as Millidge et al., 2021

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

4 of the 163 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Bastos, A. M., Vezoli, J., Bosman, C. A., Schoffelen, J.-M., Oostenveld, R., Dowdall, J. R., . . . Fries, P. (2015). Visual areas exert feedforward and feedback influences through distinct frequency channels. Neuron , 85 (2), 390-401.
  2. Boerlin, M., Machens, C. K., & Denève, S. (2013). Predictive coding of dynamical variables in balanced spiking networks. PLoS computational biology , 9 (11), e1003258.
  3. Brendel, W., Bourdoukan, R., Vertechi, P., Machens, C. K., & Denéve, S. (2020). Learning to represent signals spike by spike. PLoS computational biology , 16 (3), e1007692.
  4. Clark, A. (2015). Surfing uncertainty: Prediction, action, and the embodied mind . Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TnqECgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq= andy+clark+surfing+uncertainty&ots=aurm6iDbJR&sig=A5uoJIteAk4JDCEpnQaa2KAbfg4&redir \_esc=y#v=onepage&q=andy%20clark%20surfing%20uncertainty&f=false https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TnqECgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=andy+clark+surfing+uncertainty&ots=aurm6iDbJR&sig=A5uoJIteAk4JDCEpnQaa2KAbfg4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=andy%20clark%20surfing%20uncertainty&f=false
  5. Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature reviews neuroscience , 11 (2), 127-138.
  6. Friston, K., FitzGerald, T., Rigoli, F., Schwartenbeck, P., & Pezzulo, G. (2017b). Active inference: a process theory. Neural computation , 29 (1), 1-49.
  7. Friston, K., Stephan, K., Li, B., & Daunizeau, J. (2010). Generalised filtering. Mathematical Problems in Engineering , 2010 . Retrieved from https://www.hindawi.com/journals/mpe/2010/621670/
  8. Friston, K. J., Trujillo-Barreto, N., & Daunizeau, J. (2008b). Dem: a variational treatment of dynamic systems. Neuroimage , 41 (3), 849-885. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S1053811908001894?casa\_token=RBtljR9mpKMAAAAA:EAAQB59MLINQl8q4it \_Pxnz6EbRaqvO0mMey40hdf29Qy0kKkH69qWN24jnmhcOXamuXWBqFAG4
  9. Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., . . . Bengio, Y. (2014). Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems , 27 , 2672-2680.
  10. Harris, J. A., Mihalas, S., Hirokawa, K. E., Whitesell, J. D., Knox, J., Bernard, A., . . . others (2018). The organization of intracortical connections by layer and cell class in the mouse brain. BioRxiv , 292961.
  11. Huang, Y., & Rao, R. P. (2011). Predictive coding. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science , 2 (5), 580-593. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wcs.142?casa\_token= TJvdr2nDbr8AAAAA:0T3LOAIXt6I7YYpJIqOs204qnwU0FFQiVC976sVifVv0XB4wFlrLZ7WvALY9x \_qdoIGciEZWd12hfNQ · DOI · Paper page
  12. Johnson, M. A., & Moradi, M. H. (2005). Pid control . Springer.
  13. Kingma, D. P., & Welling, M. (2013). Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 . · arXiv
  14. Kok, P., & de Lange, F. P. (2015). Predictive coding in sensory cortex. In An introduction to model-based cognitive neuroscience (pp. 221-244). Springer. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/ 978-1-4939-2236-9\_11
  15. Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2012). Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 1097-1105).
  16. Lee, D. D., & Seung, H. S. (2001). Algorithms for non-negative matrix factorization. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 556-562).
  17. Lee, D.-H., Zhang, S., Fischer, A., & Bengio, Y. (2015). Difference target propagation. In Joint european conference on machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases (pp. 498-515).
  18. Linnainmaa, S. (1970). The representation of the cumulative rounding error of an algorithm as a taylor expansion of the local rounding errors. Master's Thesis (in Finnish), Univ. Helsinki , 6-7.
  19. Minka, T. P. (2001). A family of algorithms for approximate bayesian inference (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  20. Mumford, D. (1992). On the computational architecture of the neocortex. Biological cybernetics , 66 (3), 241-251.
  21. Neal, R. M., & Hinton, G. E. (1998). A view of the em algorithm that justifies incremental, sparse, and other variants. In Learning in graphical models (pp. 355-368). Springer.
  22. Olah, C., Mordvintsev, A., & Schubert, L. (2017). Feature visualization. Distill , 2 (11), e7.
  23. Radford, A., Wu, J., Child, R., Luan, D., Amodei, D., & Sutskever, I. (2019). Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI Blog , 1 (8), 9.
  24. Rezende, D. J., & Mohamed, S. (2015). Variational inference with normalizing flows. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.05770 . · arXiv
  25. Sacramento, J., Costa, R. P., Bengio, Y., & Senn, W. (2018). Dendritic cortical microcircuits approximate the backpropagation algorithm. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 8721-8732).
  26. Tishby, N., Pereira, F. C., & Bialek, W. (2000). The information bottleneck method. arXiv preprint physics/0004057 . · arXiv
  27. Torralba, A., & Oliva, A. (2003). Statistics of natural image categories. Network: computation in neural systems , 14 (3), 391-412.
  28. Weilnhammer, V., Stuke, H., Hesselmann, G., Sterzer, P., & Schmack, K. (2017). A predictive coding account of bistable perception-a model-based fmri study. PLoS computational biology , 13 (5), e1005536.
  29. Werbos, P. J. (1982). Applications of advances in nonlinear sensitivity analysis. In System modeling and optimization (pp. 762-770). Springer.
  30. Zenke, F., & Ganguli, S. (2018). Superspike: Supervised learning in multilayer spiking neural networks. Neural computation , 30 (6), 1514-1541.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Millidge, B., Seth, A., & Buckley, C. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
  • University of Sussex (GB)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2107.12979
arXiv
2107.12979
OpenAlex
W3186883833
Cited by
106
References
163
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 7
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
predictive coding, Bayesian brain, prediction error minimization, generative models, cortical function, microcircuits, backpropagation, machine learning, biological plausibility

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