Back

Individual prediction tendencies are related but not the same across modalities

Schubert, J.; Suess, N.; Weisz, N.

2023-02-03 neuroscience
10.1101/2023.02.02.526758 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Predictive processing theories, which model the brain as a "prediction machine", explain a wide range of cognitive functions, including learning, perception and action. Furthermore, it is increasingly accepted that aberrant prediction tendencies play a crucial role in psychiatric disorders. Given this explanatory value for clinical psychiatry, prediction tendencies are often implicitly conceptualised as individual traits or as tendencies that generalise across situations. As this has not yet explicitly been shown, in the current study, we quantify to what extent the individual tendency to anticipate sensory features of high probability generalises across modalities. Using magnetoencephalography (MEG), we recorded brain activity while participants were presented a sequence of four different (either visual or auditory) stimuli, which changed according to predefined transitional probabilities of two entropy levels: ordered vs. random. Our results show that, on a group-level, under conditions of low entropy, stimulus features of high probability are preactivated in the auditory but not in the visual modality. Crucially, the magnitude of the individual tendency to predict sensory events seems not to correlate between the two modalities. Furthermore, reliability statistics indicate poor internal consistency, suggesting that the measures from the different modalities are unlikely to reflect a single, common cognitive process. In sum, our findings suggest that quantification and interpretation of individual prediction tendencies cannot be generalised across modalities.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.