The sound of silence: Predictive error responses to unexpected sound omission in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The human auditory system excels at detecting patterns needed for processing speech and music. According to predictive coding, the brain predicts incoming sounds, compares predictions to sensory input and generates a prediction error whenever a mismatch between the prediction and sensory input occurs. Predictive coding can be indexed in electroencephalography (EEG) with the mismatch negativity (MMN) and P3a, two components of event-related potentials (ERP) that are elicited by infrequent deviant sounds (e.g., differing in pitch, duration and loudness) in a stream of frequent sounds. If these components reflect prediction error, they should also be elicited by omitting an expected sound, but few studies have examined this. We compared ERPs elicited by infrequent randomly occurring omissions (unexpected silences) in tone sequences presented at two tones per second to ERPs elicited by frequent, regularly occurring omissions (expected silences) within a sequence of tones presented at one tone per second. We found that unexpected silences elicited significant MMN and P3a, although the magnitude of these components was quite small and variable. These results provide evidence for hierarchical predictive coding, indicating that the brain predicts silences and sounds.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".