Back

Explicit knowledge gates expectation suppression in the motor system: Evidence from a TMS motor oddball paradigm

Cost-Chretien, M. E.; Rideaux, R.; Tran, D. M. D.

2026-04-30 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.04.27.721216 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Models of predictive processing propose that the brain continuously generates predictions about incoming sensory input, updating an internal model of the environment through prediction errors when those predictions are violated. A foundational assumption of these models is that prediction error generation occurs automatically, independently of conscious awareness. Evidence from auditory oddball studies in unconscious patients appears to support this view, though findings are complicated by stimulus-specific adaptation confounds that make it difficult to isolate genuine predictive effects. To investigate whether expectation suppression or prediction-based attenuation extends to the motor system and whether it operates automatically, we developed a novel motor oddball paradigm using brain stimulation. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) delivered over the primary motor cortex elicit motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) in peripheral muscles, providing an index of corticospinal excitability. By varying stimulation intensity in an oddball-like manner using repeating and deviating sequences, we manipulated the predictability of TMS pulses and compared MEP amplitudes for expected versus unexpected intensity-matched stimulation. Incorporating experimental designs to control for adaptation and an instruction manipulation to test the role of awareness, expected TMS reliably produced smaller MEPs than unexpected TMS. Critically, this attenuation was observed only in participants with explicit knowledge of the sequence structure. These findings extend expectation suppression effects to the motor system and support the domain-generality of prediction-based neural attenuation while challenging the assumption that predictive processing operates entirely automatically.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
28.1%
2
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 3%
14.6%
3
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 22%
8.5%
50% of probability mass above
4
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 12%
6.5%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 22%
4.9%
6
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.7%
7
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.6%
8
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
119 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
9
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.1%
10
Cerebral Cortex Communications
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
11
Brain Stimulation
112 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
12
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
13
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
14
Cerebral Cortex
357 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
15
Neuropsychologia
77 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.4%
16
Neuron
282 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.2%
17
Journal of Neurophysiology
263 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
18
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 30%
0.9%
19
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.8%
20
Progress in Neurobiology
41 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Brain
154 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 31%
0.8%
23
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
24
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%