Expectation (and attention) in visual cognition.

By Christopher Summerfield, Tobias Egner. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2009

954 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8bfe416ec65ffa6ec4f78ebb572bfec6209e5b30

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

Citations in the corpus

Top-down control and early multisensory processes: chicken vs. egg (2015, background): “…of the eMSI goes together with the evidence from unisensory research linking reduced responses with more efficient and information-rich processing akin to the repetition suppression phenomena and the predictive coding accounts (e.g., Grill-Spector et al., 2006; Summerfield and Egner, 2009).”
Less Is More: Expectation Sharpens Representations in the Primary Visual Cortex (2012, positive): “This suggests that expectation and attentional task-set may be partly distinct processes, as has been previously argued (Summerfield and Egner, 2009).”
Statistical learning of visual transitions in monkey inferotemporal cortex (2011, background): “No effort has been made as yet to characterize the underlying neuronal mechanisms (29).”
How Prediction Errors Shape Perception, Attention, and Motivation (2012, background): “More generally speaking, since there is at present no direct evidence for distinct P and PE units within the cortical hierarchy (Summerfield and Egner, 2009), it will be imperative for future studies to concurrently measure several cortical units with greater (laminar) specificity, in order to…”
Computational neuroanatomy of speech production (2012, result): “However, in the later, external monitoring phase, the sensory representation is suppressed, which is consistent with some models of top-down sensory prediction 114,115 , and this enhances the detection of deviation from expectation; that is, the detection of errors.”
Varieties of cognitive penetration in visual perception. (2014, neutral): “We will just mention two of them, but there are several other models that fit within out framework (e.g. Bar, 2007; Gilbert & Sigman, 2007; Summerfield & Egner, 2009).”
Expectation and Surprise Determine Neural Population Responses in the Ventral Visual Stream (2010, background): “While the current results are thus unlikely to be confounded by attentional influences, the general question of how predictive coding schemes may relate to attention is the subject of ongoing debate (Rao and Ballard, 2005; Spratling, 2008; Friston, 2009) and, in our view, represents a highly interes”
Semantic Image Retrieval via Active Grounding of Visual Situations (2017, background): “This interaction of top-down expectations and bottom-up perception enables a human viewer to very quickly locate relevant aspects of the situation [4], [5].”
Attention Reverses the Effect of Prediction in Silencing Sensory Signals (2011, neutral): “…whether a stimulus is likely to be presented) is confounded with attention (i.e., whether a stimulus is behaviorally relevant; for a discussion, see Summerfield and Egner 2009), which is known to boost rather than reduce neural activity in sensory regions (Corbetta et al. 1990; Brefczynski and…”
Contextual factors multiplex to control multisensory processes (2016, result): “This interpretation is in line with emerging notions regarding the interplay between top-down attention mechanisms and stimulus expectations [e.g. Auksztulewicz and Friston, 2015; Kok et al., 2012; Larsson and Smith, 2012; Summerfield and Egner, 2009].”
The Effect of Imagination on Stimulation: The Functional Specificity of Efference Copies in Speech Processing (2013, positive): “Conversely, the repetition enhancement observed in the articulation conditions agrees with feature-based attention theory (Summerfield & Egner, 2009), in which the expectation prioritizes the preselected features and boosts the sensitivity of particular features during subsequent perception.”