Predictive coding
Does a more predictable background make surprises bigger in the brain?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
The same rare tone produced a larger mismatch-like brain response when the surrounding sound sequence was more stable and predictable.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Human experiment — Within-subject passive auditory EEG with four tone sequences in which the standard tone's probability varied (10/11, 7/11, 4/11, 1/11) while the deviant tone stayed at 1/11.
- N
- N=20 · 20 analysed healthy adults aged 21-55 (25 recorded; 2 lost to recording problems, 3 to EEG artefacts).
- Population
- Healthy adult volunteers without neurological, psychiatric or hearing problems, recorded in Spain
- Outcome
- ERP amplitude to the fixed-probability deviant tone (and, secondarily, to the standard and the deviant-minus-standard difference wave)
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
The deviant tone's EEG response became steadily more negative over frontocentral scalp between 122 and 202 ms as the standard became more probable, peaking around 170 ms, the time range of the mismatch negativity (MMN). The deviant response was significantly more negative in the oddball block than in the random and low-confidence blocks. Responses to the standard tone itself showed no significant change, while the classic deviant-minus-standard difference wave showed a graded MMN and an earlier P50 effect.
Methodology
Twenty adults read while passively hearing four blocks of rapid pure tones. In every block a particular 'deviant' tone appeared equally rarely, but the 'standard' tone around it ranged from very common (a classic oddball sequence) to no more common than other tones (a random sequence), with filler tones making up the rest. Because the deviant's own probability never changed, differences in its brain response could be attributed to how confident the brain could be about the regularity, not to how rare the deviant was.
Limitations
The sample is small and ages spanned 21 to 55, and only 16 electrodes were used, so source localisation was not possible. The standard and deviant were physically different tones, so the classic difference wave mixes precision with frequency differences and with adaptation to the more repeated standard; the authors therefore rest conclusions on the deviant response alone. Participants were reading and not attending to the tones, so the results may not extend to attended listening, and the study manipulated only pitch variability, leaving other kinds of uncertainty untested.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Not yet placed on a claim. This paper has study layers, but no concept page yet cites it as support, challenge, or qualifier.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.