Sensory expectations and prediction error during feedback control in the human brain

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

External disturbances to the body are better counteracted when their nature can be predicted in advance. Here, we investigated the neural mechanisms through which probabilistic predictions shape feedback responses using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in humans. We show that, prior to a mechanical perturbation applied to a finger, the primary motor (M1) and somatosensory (S1) cortices receive a signal that linearly encodes the expected sensory input. When perturbations reach these areas, expectations are combined with the sensory input through a simple additive mechanism, yielding motor commands that reflect a weighted sum of the two signals. At the same time, M1 and S1 receive a prediction error signal encoding the difference between expectations and actual sensory input. This signal is visible in fMRI data in humans and in the local field potentials in non-human primates, but not in M1 or S1 spiking activity.
Full text 1,083 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract External disturbances to the body are better counteracted when their nature can be predicted in advance. Here, we investigated the neural mechanisms through which probabilistic predictions shape feedback responses using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in humans. We show that, prior to a mechanical perturbation applied to a finger, the primary motor (M1) and somatosensory (S1) cortices receive a signal that linearly encodes the expected sensory input. When perturbations reach these areas, expectations are combined with the sensory input through a simple additive mechanism, yielding motor commands that reflect a weighted sum of the two signals. At the same time, M1 and S1 receive a prediction error signal, likely from upstream regions, encoding the difference between expectations and actual sensory input. This signal is visible in fMRI data in humans and in the local field potentials in non-human primates, but not in M1-S1 spiking activity. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Footnotes ↵* co-senior authors

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-27T02:00:06.600101+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0