Real-world expectations and their affective value modulate object processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that expectations influence how we perceive the world. Yet the neural mechanisms underlying this process remain unclear. Studies about the effects of prior expectations have focused so far on artificial contingencies between simple neutral cues and events. Real-world expectations are however often generated from complex associations between contexts and objects learned over a lifetime. Additionally, these expectations may contain some affective value and recent proposals present conflicting hypotheses about the mechanisms underlying affect in predictions. In this study, we used fMRI to investigate how object processing is influenced by realistic context-based expectations, and how affect impacts these expectations. First, we show that the precuneus, the inferotemporal cortex and the frontal cortex are more active during object recognition when expectations have been elicited a priori, irrespectively of their validity or their affective intensity. This result supports previous hypotheses according to which these brain areas integrate contextual expectations with object sensory information. Notably, these brain areas are different from those responsible for simultaneous context-object interactions, dissociating the two processes. Then, we show that early visual areas, on the contrary, are more active during object recognition when no prior expectation has been elicited by a context. Lastly, BOLD activity was shown to be enhanced in early visual areas when objects are less expected, but only when contexts are neutral; the reverse effect is observed when contexts are affective. This result supports the proposal that affect modulates the weighting of sensory information during predictions. Together, our results help elucidate the neural mechanisms of real-world expectations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".