Abstract

Generative models, such as predictive coding, posit that perception results from a combination of sensory input and prior prediction, each weighted by its precision (inverse variance), with incongruence between these termed prediction error (deviation from prediction) or surprise (negative log probability of the sensory input). However, direct evidence for such a system, and the physiological basis of its computations, is lacking. Using an auditory stimulus whose pitch value changed according to specific rules, we controlled and separated the three key computational variables underlying perception, and discovered, using direct recordings from human auditory cortex, that surprise due to prediction violations is encoded by local field potential oscillations in the gamma band (>30 Hz), changes to predictions in the beta band (12-30 Hz), and that the precision of predictions appears to quantitatively relate to alpha band oscillations (8-12 Hz). These results confirm oscillatory codes for critical aspects of generative models of perception.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. William Sedley

    Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    willsedley@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Phillip E Gander

    Human Brain Research Laboratory, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Sukhbinder Kumar

    Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Christopher K Kovach

    Human Brain Research Laboratory, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Hiroyuki Oya

    Human Brain Research Laboratory, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Hiroto Kawasaki

    Human Brain Research Laboratory, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Matthew A Howard

    Human Brain Research Laboratory, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Timothy D Griffiths

    Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Andrew J King, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Ethics

Human subjects: The study was approved by the University of Iowa Institutional Review Board, and with full informed written consent from all participants.

Version history

  1. Received: September 9, 2015
  2. Accepted: March 5, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 7, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: April 19, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Sedley et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,510
    views
  • 989
    downloads
  • 124
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. William Sedley
  2. Phillip E Gander
  3. Sukhbinder Kumar
  4. Christopher K Kovach
  5. Hiroyuki Oya
  6. Hiroto Kawasaki
  7. Matthew A Howard
  8. Timothy D Griffiths
(2016)
Neural Signatures of Perceptual Inference
eLife 5:e11476.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11476

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.11476

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Hao Li, Jingyu Feng ... Jufang He
    Research Article

    Cholecystokinin (CCK) is an essential modulator for neuroplasticity in sensory and emotional domains. Here, we investigated the role of CCK in motor learning using a single pellet reaching task in mice. Mice with a knockout of Cck gene (Cck−/−) or blockade of CCK-B receptor (CCKBR) showed defective motor learning ability; the success rate of retrieving reward remained at the baseline level compared to the wildtype mice with significantly increased success rate. We observed no long-term potentiation upon high-frequency stimulation in the motor cortex of Cck−/− mice, indicating a possible association between motor learning deficiency and neuroplasticity in the motor cortex. In vivo calcium imaging demonstrated that the deficiency of CCK signaling disrupted the refinement of population neuronal activity in the motor cortex during motor skill training. Anatomical tracing revealed direct projections from CCK-expressing neurons in the rhinal cortex to the motor cortex. Inactivation of the CCK neurons in the rhinal cortex that project to the motor cortex bilaterally using chemogenetic methods significantly suppressed motor learning, and intraperitoneal application of CCK4, a tetrapeptide CCK agonist, rescued the motor learning deficits of Cck−/− mice. In summary, our results suggest that CCK, which could be provided from the rhinal cortex, may surpport motor skill learning by modulating neuroplasticity in the motor cortex.

    1. Neuroscience
    Ivan Tomić, Paul M Bays
    Research Article

    Probing memory of a complex visual image within a few hundred milliseconds after its disappearance reveals significantly greater fidelity of recall than if the probe is delayed by as little as a second. Classically interpreted, the former taps into a detailed but rapidly decaying visual sensory or ‘iconic’ memory (IM), while the latter relies on capacity-limited but comparatively stable visual working memory (VWM). While iconic decay and VWM capacity have been extensively studied independently, currently no single framework quantitatively accounts for the dynamics of memory fidelity over these time scales. Here, we extend a stationary neural population model of VWM with a temporal dimension, incorporating rapid sensory-driven accumulation of activity encoding each visual feature in memory, and a slower accumulation of internal error that causes memorized features to randomly drift over time. Instead of facilitating read-out from an independent sensory store, an early cue benefits recall by lifting the effective limit on VWM signal strength imposed when multiple items compete for representation, allowing memory for the cued item to be supplemented with information from the decaying sensory trace. Empirical measurements of human recall dynamics validate these predictions while excluding alternative model architectures. A key conclusion is that differences in capacity classically thought to distinguish IM and VWM are in fact contingent upon a single resource-limited WM store.