Back

A comparison of sharpening and dampening accounts of the role of expectation in shaping the neural fidelity of early visual representations

Rideaux, R.; Hu, Z.; Chidley, K.; Cloos, M.; Schwarzkopf, D. S.; Mattingley, J. B.

2026-07-06 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.07.05.736624 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The natural environment is spatiotemporally structured, and the brain exploits this regularity to predict and prepare for upcoming sensory stimuli. Such predictive processing is thought to increase neural efficiency by reducing metabolic expenditure and altering the fidelity with which newly encountered stimuli are encoded. Competing theoretical frameworks propose this is achieved either through sharpening, whereby expected events are encoded more precisely, or dampening, whereby expected events are suppressed and encoded less precisely. Despite clear, opposing predictions, evidence in humans for each account remains mixed due to methodological and analytical inconsistencies. Here we addressed these issues using probabilistic visual paradigm combined with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG). We used population receptive field (pRF) mapping of fMRI data and inverted encoding of EEG data to compare the fidelity and timecourse of activity in visual areas in response to expected, unexpected, and random stimuli. Both methods produced a consistent pattern of results. Post hoc analysis of EEG data revealed that the apparent effect of expectancy was better explained by local spatiotemporal stimulus properties than the global expectancy manipulation. Although this pattern resembled sensory adaptation, it was more consistent with an expectation of temporal stability combined with dampening, in which both the aggregate response to expected features and their representational fidelity are suppressed. Taken together, our findings suggest that predictive processing may operate through dampening, with ecological advantages for high-fidelity encoding of unexpected sensory events.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
135 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.6%
2
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.7%
3
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 3%
10.4%
4
The Journal of Neuroscience
1025 papers in training set
Top 2%
9.5%
5
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 11%
9.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 2%
7.1%
7
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 7%
5.3%
8
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.7%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 37%
3.0%
10
Cerebral Cortex
396 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
11
Cortex
119 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.3%
12
Progress in Neurobiology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
13
Current Biology
665 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.6%
14
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.5%
15
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
16
Imaging Neuroscience
282 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
17
European Journal of Neuroscience
189 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
18
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
72 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
19
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 28%
1.0%
20
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 59%
1.0%
21
Human Brain Mapping
329 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
Journal of Vision
110 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
23
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 37%
0.8%
24
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
25
Psychological Science
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%