Attention promotes the neural encoding of prediction errors

The encoding of sensory information in the human brain is thought to be optimised by two principal processes: ‘prediction’ uses stored information to guide the interpretation of forthcoming sensory events, and ‘attention’ prioritizes these events according to their behavioural relevance. Despite the ubiquitous contributions of attention and prediction to various aspects of perception and cognition, it remains unknown how they interact to modulate information processing in the brain. A recent extension of predictive coding theory suggests that attention optimises the expected precision of predictions by modulating the synaptic gain of prediction error units. Because prediction errors code for the difference between predictions and sensory signals, this model would suggest that attention increases the selectivity for mismatch information in the neural response to a surprising stimulus. Alternative predictive coding models propose that attention increases the activity of prediction (or ‘representation’) neurons and would therefore suggest that attention and prediction synergistically modulate selectivity for ‘feature information’ in the brain. Here, we applied forward encoding models to neural activity recorded via electroencephalography (EEG) as human observers performed a simple visual task to test for the effect of attention on both mismatch and feature information in the neural response to surprising stimuli. Participants attended or ignored a periodic stream of gratings, the orientations of which could be either predictable, surprising, or unpredictable. We found that surprising stimuli evoked neural responses that were encoded according to the difference between predicted and observed stimulus features, and that attention facilitated the encoding of this type of information in the brain. These findings advance our understanding of how attention and prediction modulate information processing in the brain, as well as support the theory that attention optimises precision expectations during hierarchical inference by increasing the gain of prediction errors.

[1]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A Neurocomputational Model of the Mismatch Negativity , 2013, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[2]  Janneke F. M. Jehee,et al.  Less Is More: Expectation Sharpens Representations in the Primary Visual Cortex , 2012, Neuron.

[3]  C. Koch,et al.  The origin of extracellular fields and currents — EEG, ECoG, LFP and spikes , 2012, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[4]  Gustavo Rohenkohl,et al.  Testing sensory evidence against mnemonic templates , 2015, eLife.

[5]  R. Desimone,et al.  Competitive Mechanisms Subserve Attention in Macaque Areas V2 and V4 , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[6]  D. Heeger,et al.  Cross-orientation suppression in human visual cortex. , 2011, Journal of neurophysiology.

[7]  Michael X Cohen,et al.  Where Does EEG Come From and What Does It Mean? , 2017, Trends in Neurosciences.

[8]  K. Reinikainen,et al.  Attentive novelty detection in humans is governed by pre-attentive sensory memory , 1994, Nature.

[9]  Nikolaus Kriegeskorte,et al.  Analyzing for information, not activation, to exploit high-resolution fMRI , 2007, NeuroImage.

[10]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Bayesian inference and attentional modulation in the visual cortex , 2005, Neuroreport.

[11]  David R. Liu,et al.  Ensemble cryoEM elucidates the mechanism of insulin capture and degradation by human insulin degrading enzyme , 2018, eLife.

[12]  Motohiro Kimura,et al.  Task difficulty affects the predictive process indexed by visual mismatch negativity , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[13]  Erich Schröger,et al.  Interrelation of attention and prediction in visual processing: Effects of task-relevance and stimulus probability , 2017, Biological Psychology.

[14]  D. Heeger,et al.  Decoding and Reconstructing Color from Responses in Human Visual Cortex , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[15]  Motohiro Kimura,et al.  Automatic prediction regarding the next state of a visual object: Electrophysiological indicators of prediction match and mismatch , 2015, Brain Research.

[16]  Floris P de Lange,et al.  Prior expectations induce prestimulus sensory templates , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Edward Awh,et al.  Feature-Selective Attentional Modulations in Human Frontoparietal Cortex , 2016, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[18]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Correction: A Neurocomputational Model of the Mismatch Negativity , 2013, PLoS Computational Biology.

[19]  Robert Oostenveld,et al.  FieldTrip: Open Source Software for Advanced Analysis of MEG, EEG, and Invasive Electrophysiological Data , 2010, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[20]  Cooper A. Smout,et al.  Prediction error and repetition suppression have distinct effects on neural representations of visual information , 2017, bioRxiv.

[21]  Floris P. de Lange,et al.  Dissociating sensory from decision processes in human perceptual decision making , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[22]  Jude F. Mitchell,et al.  Spatial Attention Decorrelates Intrinsic Activity Fluctuations in Macaque Area V4 , 2009, Neuron.

[23]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

[24]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Characterizing the dynamics of mental representations: the temporal generalization method , 2014, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[25]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  ECVP '07 Abstracts , 2007, Perception.

[26]  Dorothy V. M. Bishop,et al.  Journal of Neuroscience Methods , 2015 .

[27]  Michael W. Spratling A review of predictive coding algorithms , 2017, Brain and Cognition.

[28]  John T. Serences,et al.  Attention modulates spatial priority maps in the human occipital, parietal and frontal cortices , 2013, Nature Neuroscience.

[29]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. , 1999 .

[30]  Z. Diénès Understanding Psychology as a Science: An Introduction to Scientific and Statistical Inference , 2008 .

[31]  F. Waszak,et al.  Both attention and prediction are necessary for adaptive neuronal tuning in sensory processing , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[32]  Janneke F. M. Jehee,et al.  Attention Reverses the Effect of Prediction in Silencing Sensory Signals , 2011, Cerebral cortex.

[33]  Michael W. Spratling Reconciling Predictive Coding and Biased Competition Models of Cortical Function , 2008, Frontiers Comput. Neurosci..

[34]  D. Vernon,et al.  Event-Related Brain Potential Correlates of Human Auditory Sensory Memory-Trace Formation , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[35]  E. Schröger,et al.  Attention and prediction in human audition: a lesson from cognitive psychophysiology , 2015, The European journal of neuroscience.

[36]  A. Kohn,et al.  Distinct Effects of Brief and Prolonged Adaptation on Orientation Tuning in Primary Visual Cortex , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[37]  M. Bar Visual objects in context , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[38]  Jennifer E Van Eyk,et al.  A deleterious gene-by-environment interaction imposed by calcium channel blockers in Marfan syndrome , 2015, eLife.

[39]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  The functional anatomy of the MMN: A DCM study of the roving paradigm , 2008, NeuroImage.

[40]  I. Winkler,et al.  Memory prerequisites of mismatch negativity in the auditory event-related potential (ERP). , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[41]  C. Summerfield,et al.  Expectation in perceptual decision making: neural and computational mechanisms , 2014, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[42]  G. Stefanics,et al.  Visual mismatch negativity: a predictive coding view , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[43]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Attentional Enhancement of Auditory Mismatch Responses: a DCM/MEG Study , 2015, Cerebral cortex.

[44]  Zoltan Dienes,et al.  Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[45]  Erich Schröger,et al.  Visual mismatch negativity: new evidence from the equiprobable paradigm. , 2009, Psychophysiology.

[46]  Karl J. Friston The free-energy principle: a rough guide to the brain? , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[47]  Paul B. Fitzgerald,et al.  A transcranial magnetic stimulation study of the effect of visual orientation on the putative human mirror neuron system , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[48]  A Tales,et al.  Mismatch negativity in the visual modality. , 1999, Neuroreport.

[49]  Tai Sing Lee,et al.  Hierarchical Bayesian inference in the visual cortex. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[50]  J. Serences,et al.  Near-Real-Time Feature-Selective Modulations in Human Cortex , 2013, Current Biology.

[51]  Piia Astikainen,et al.  Visual mismatch negativity for changes in orientation – a sensory memory‐dependent response , 2008, The European journal of neuroscience.

[52]  R. Turner,et al.  Deficient approaches to human neuroimaging , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[53]  Arnaud Delorme,et al.  EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis , 2004, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[54]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Attention, Uncertainty, and Free-Energy , 2010, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[55]  Luba Sominsky,et al.  Eating behavior and stress: a pathway to obesity , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[56]  Michael W. Spratling Predictive coding as a model of biased competition in visual attention , 2008, Vision Research.

[57]  Christopher Summerfield,et al.  Dissociable prior influences of signal probability and relevance on visual contrast sensitivity , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[58]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A theory of cortical responses , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[59]  Moritz Grosse-Wentrup,et al.  Multisubject Learning for Common Spatial Patterns in Motor-Imagery BCI , 2011, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[60]  A. Watson,et al.  Quest: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[61]  A. Schwope,et al.  Corrigendum: Worldwide variations in artificial skyglow , 2015, Scientific Reports.