» Articles » PMID: 22147913

Evidence for a Hierarchy of Predictions and Prediction Errors in Human Cortex

Overview
Specialty Science
Date 2011 Dec 8
PMID 22147913
Citations 197
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

According to hierarchical predictive coding models, the cortex constantly generates predictions of incoming stimuli at multiple levels of processing. Responses to auditory mismatches and omissions are interpreted as reflecting the prediction error when these predictions are violated. An alternative interpretation, however, is that neurons passively adapt to repeated stimuli. We separated these alternative interpretations by designing a hierarchical auditory novelty paradigm and recording human EEG and magnetoencephalographic (MEG) responses to mismatching or omitted stimuli. In the crucial condition, participants listened to frequent series of four identical tones followed by a fifth different tone, which generates a mismatch response. Because this response itself is frequent and expected, the hierarchical predictive coding hypothesis suggests that it should be cancelled out by a higher-order prediction. Three consequences ensue. First, the mismatch response should be larger when it is unexpected than when it is expected. Second, a perfectly monotonic sequence of five identical tones should now elicit a higher-order novelty response. Third, omitting the fifth tone should reveal the brain's hierarchical predictions. The rationale here is that, when a deviant tone is expected, its omission represents a violation of two expectations: a local prediction of a tone plus a hierarchically higher expectation of its deviancy. Thus, such an omission should induce a greater prediction error than when a standard tone is expected. Simultaneous EEE- magnetoencephalographic recordings verify those predictions and thus strongly support the predictive coding hypothesis. Higher-order predictions appear to be generated in multiple areas of frontal and associative cortices.

Citing Articles

P300 as an index of speech-in-noise understanding in complex acoustic environments in young and older adults.

Pearson D, Shen Y, Hetrick W, ODonnell B, Lundin N, McAuley J Front Neurosci. 2025; 19:1497781.

PMID: 40046437 PMC: 11879943. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2025.1497781.


Discrete Repetition Effects for Visual Words Compared to Faces and Animals, but No Modulation by Expectation: An Event-Related Potential Study.

Song B, Sommer W, Maurer U Eur J Neurosci. 2025; 61(5):e70047.

PMID: 40033627 PMC: 11876721. DOI: 10.1111/ejn.70047.


Predicted missing information biases ensemble perception of temporally ordered facial expressions.

Lu J, Wang J Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):3957.

PMID: 39890982 PMC: 11785940. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-87936-2.


Predictive coding and attention in developmental cognitive neuroscience and perspectives for neurodevelopmental disorders.

Marais A, Roche-Labarbe N Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2025; 72:101519.

PMID: 39864185 PMC: 11795830. DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2025.101519.


Complex auditory regularity processing across levels of consciousness in coma: Stage 1 Registered Report.

Pelentritou A, Cataldi J, Zubler F, Iten M, Haenggi M, Ben-Hamouda N Brain Commun. 2025; 7(1):fcae466.

PMID: 39822953 PMC: 11735756. DOI: 10.1093/braincomms/fcae466.


References
1.
Garrido M, Kilner J, Kiebel S, Friston K . Evoked brain responses are generated by feedback loops. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007; 104(52):20961-6. PMC: 2409249. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0706274105. View

2.
Garrido M, Kilner J, Stephan K, Friston K . The mismatch negativity: a review of underlying mechanisms. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009; 120(3):453-63. PMC: 2671031. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.11.029. View

3.
Faugeras F, Rohaut B, Weiss N, Bekinschtein T, Galanaud D, Puybasset L . Probing consciousness with event-related potentials in the vegetative state. Neurology. 2011; 77(3):264-8. PMC: 3136052. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182217ee8. View

4.
Naatanen R, Gaillard A, Mantysalo S . Early selective-attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1978; 42(4):313-29. DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(78)90006-9. View

5.
Allen J, Kraus N, Bradlow A . Neural representation of consciously imperceptible speech sound differences. Percept Psychophys. 2001; 62(7):1383-93. DOI: 10.3758/bf03212140. View