Action Intention-based and Stimulus Regularity-based Predictions: Same or Different?

Abstract

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.

Sensory Attenuation of the Auditory P2 Differentiates Self- from Partner-Produced Sounds during Joint Action

“…Specifically, because the first sequence tone was a different frequency than the four preceding pacing tones, ERP amplitudes elicited by the first sequence tone could potentially reflect a mismatch negativity (MMN), which overlaps in time with both the N1 and the P2 (Näätänen, Paavilainen, Rinne, & Alho, 2007). In line with this, recent research suggests that predictions based on self-produced actions contribute to the MMN (Korka, Schröger, & Widmann, 2019). However, we suggest two reasons why an MMN is unlikely to account for self-specific P2 attenuation in the current study.…”

What exactly is missing here? The sensory processing of unpredictable omissions is modulated by the specificity of expected action‐effects

“…The Bayes factor (BF 10 ) was calculated using 10.000 Monte-Carlo sampling iterations; the null hypothesis corresponded to a standardized effect size δ = 0, while the alternative hypothesis was defined as a Cauchy prior distribution centred around 0 with a scaling factor of r = 0.707 (Rouder, Morey, Speckman, & Province, 2012). In line with the Bayes factor interpretation (Jeffreys, 1961;Lee & Wagenmakers, 2013) and with previous studies reporting Bayes factors (Korka et al, 2019;Marzecová et al, 2018;Stuckenberg, Schröger, & Widmann, 2019), data were taken as moderate evidence for the alternative (or null) hypothesis if the BF 10 was greater than 3 (or lower than 0.33), while values close to 1 were considered only weakly informative. Values greater than 10 (or smaller than 0.1) were considered strong evidence for the alternative (or null) hypothesis.…”

“…Many action‐effect studies failed to distinguish between the effects of overall probability vs. action intention. That is, even though the role of action intention as a main source of information driving predictions has been previously discussed in the literature (Hughes et al, 2013b; Waszak & Herwig, 2007), only recently did a study point out that the its effects on early sensory processing can be observed without global regularity of the standard tone (Korka et al, 2019). From this perspective, the present results are especially illustrative; here, the omission‐related activity likely represents the endogenous neural signature of prediction (Arnal & Giraud, 2012) that appears to be exclusively based on intention and specific action‐effect couplings.…”

“…In line with this, results of a recent study indicate that mismatching the action intention-based predictions elicit MMN and P3a responses, even when two tones that are inversely associated with left and right-hand key-presses are overall presented with equal chances. (Korka, Schröger, & Widmann, 2019).…”

The auditory brain in action: Intention determines predictive processing in the auditory system—A review of current paradigms and findings

“…With this goal in mind, Korka et al (2019) asked participants to make left and right key presses to generate high and low frequency tones. Based on the key-tone associations, but also on the ratio of left and right key press, they contrasted in three conditions predictions based on tone regularity, action intention, or both combined.…”