Action Intention-based and Stimulus Regularity-based Predictions: Same or Different?
Action Intention-based and Stimulus Regularity-based Predictions: Same or Different?
复制标题
基于行动意图和基于刺激规律的预测：相同还是不同？
DOI：
10.1162/jocn_a_01456
复制
发表时间：
1932
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Widmann
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Schröger;Widmann
我们对环境采取行动，以产生预期的效果，但我们也通过学习下一步的预期来适应环境需求，基于经验：基于行动的预测和感官预测如何相互关联？我们探索这一点，通过实施一个自我生成的古怪的范例，参与者进行随机序列的左，右按钮按下，以产生频繁的标准和罕见的异常音调。通过操纵的动作音的关联，以及按钮按下另一个的可能性，我们比较ERP的影响引起的意图产生一个特定的音调，音调的规律性，以及意图和规律性。我们发现，N1响应的N1b和Tb分量调制的音调规律性的侵犯。然而，违反行动意图以及规则性引起MMN的反应，这发生在所有三个条件类似。无论在感官水平的预测是基于意图，规律性，或两者兼而有之，音调偏差进一步和同样好地检测到在层次更高的处理水平，反映在类似的P3a条件之间的影响。当意图和规律性同时被违反时，我们没有观察到加性预测误差，这表明尽管可能有独立的生成器，但两者是一体的。尽管它们在文献中经常作为单独的预测来源进行讨论，但据我们所知，这项研究是第一次直接比较它们。最后，这些结果表明，在行动的背景下，我们的大脑可以轻松地在自上而下的基于意图的预期和自下而上的规律性线索之间切换，以有效地预测未来的事件。
We act on the environment to produce desired effects, but we also adapt to the environmental demands by learning what to expect next, based on experience: How do action-based predictions and sensory predictions relate to each other? We explore this by implementing a self-generation oddball paradigm, where participants performed random sequences of left and right button presses to produce frequent standard and rare deviant tones. By manipulating the action–tone association as well as the likelihood of a button press over the other one, we compare ERP effects evoked by the intention to produce a specific tone, tone regularity, and both intention and regularity. We show that the N1b and Tb components of the N1 response are modulated by violations of tone regularity only. However, violations of action intention as well as of regularity elicit MMN responses, which occur similarly in all three conditions. Regardless of whether the predictions at sensory levels were based on either intention, regularity, or both, the tone deviance was further and equally well detected at hierarchically higher processing level, as reflected in similar P3a effects between conditions. We did not observe additive prediction errors when intention and regularity were violated concurrently, suggesting the two integrate despite presumably having independent generators. Even though they are often discussed as individual prediction sources in the literature, this study represents to our knowledge the first to directly compare them. Finally, these results show how, in the context of action, our brain can easily switch between top–down intention-based expectations and bottom–up regularity cues to efficiently predict future events.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Florian Waszak;Arvid Herwig
通讯作者：
Arvid Herwig
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Lange K
通讯作者：
Lange K
事件相关的大脑电位对自触发音：行动类型和冲动特征的影响
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
S. Bars;Álvaro Darriba;Florian Waszak
通讯作者：
Florian Waszak
DOI：
10.1364/josaa.20.001434
发表时间：
2003-07-01
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
Lee, TS;Mumford, D
通讯作者：
Mumford, D
影响因子：
3
作者：
Baess, Pamela;Jacobsen, Thomas;Schroeger, Erich
通讯作者：
Schroeger, Erich