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

  • 4,575
    views
  • 998
    downloads
  • 129
    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
    Alexandra L Jellinger, Rebecca L Suthard ... Steve Ramirez
    Research Article

    Negative memories engage a brain and body-wide stress response in humans that can alter cognition and behavior. Prolonged stress responses induce maladaptive cellular, circuit, and systems-level changes that can lead to pathological brain states and corresponding disorders in which mood and memory are affected. However, it is unclear if repeated activation of cells processing negative memories induces similar phenotypes in mice. In this study, we used an activity-dependent tagging method to access neuronal ensembles and assess their molecular characteristics. Sequencing memory engrams in mice revealed that positive (male-to-female exposure) and negative (foot shock) cells upregulated genes linked to anti- and pro-inflammatory responses, respectively. To investigate the impact of persistent activation of negative engrams, we chemogenetically activated them in the ventral hippocampus over 3 months and conducted anxiety and memory-related tests. Negative engram activation increased anxiety behaviors in both 6- and 14-month-old mice, reduced spatial working memory in older mice, impaired fear extinction in younger mice, and heightened fear generalization in both age groups. Immunohistochemistry revealed changes in microglial and astrocytic structure and number in the hippocampus. In summary, repeated activation of negative memories induces lasting cellular and behavioral abnormalities in mice, offering insights into the negative effects of chronic negative thinking-like behaviors on human health.

    1. Neuroscience
    Alexandra H Leighton, Juliette E Cheyne, Christian Lohmann
    Research Article

    Synaptic inputs to cortical neurons are highly structured in adult sensory systems, such that neighboring synapses along dendrites are activated by similar stimuli. This organization of synaptic inputs, called synaptic clustering, is required for high-fidelity signal processing, and clustered synapses can already be observed before eye opening. However, how clustered inputs emerge during development is unknown. Here, we employed concurrent in vivo whole-cell patch-clamp and dendritic calcium imaging to map spontaneous synaptic inputs to dendrites of layer 2/3 neurons in the mouse primary visual cortex during the second postnatal week until eye opening. We found that the number of functional synapses and the frequency of transmission events increase several fold during this developmental period. At the beginning of the second postnatal week, synapses assemble specifically in confined dendritic segments, whereas other segments are devoid of synapses. By the end of the second postnatal week, just before eye opening, dendrites are almost entirely covered by domains of co-active synapses. Finally, co-activity with their neighbor synapses correlates with synaptic stabilization and potentiation. Thus, clustered synapses form in distinct functional domains presumably to equip dendrites with computational modules for high-capacity sensory processing when the eyes open.