Perceptual predictions track subjective, over objective, statistical structure

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
Full text 1,875 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Over the past two decades, converging evidence from neuroscience and psychology has shown that predictions based on learnt statistical regularities exert a widespread influence on perception, action and cognition. Predictive processes in cognition and the brain are usually modelled as tracking objective event probabilities, deriving predictions and prediction errors from the statistical structure of the environment. However, our subjective models of our environments do not always align with these objective statistics. Currently we know little about how these subjective representations may determine the predictive functions. To separate subjective and objective contributions to prediction, we conducted three studies where cues (actions or tones) predicted visual outcomes (shapes or Gabors) with varying contingencies, and adult participants discriminated these outcomes. Uniquely to our paradigm, participants also reported their experiences of the statistical structure embedded in the task – the subjective probability (Experiment 1; N = 68), expectedness (Experiment 2; N = 35), or surprise (Experiment 3; N = 35) associated with the outcomes. When modelling subjective ratings alongside objective structure, the speed of perceptual decisions was best explained by independent, additive contributions of both. The decision itself was usually only explained by the subjective ratings, with little additional variance explained by objective statistical structure. These findings suggest that subjective experience may play a key, overlooked role in predictive processes, and open a host of interesting questions about the relative objective and subjective contributions to prediction, perception, and learning. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Footnotes The abstract and discussion have been slightly expanded.

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 (2025) — 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