Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42369034›Full record

ArticleiScience2026

Violating statistical structure impairs detection of deviant and incidental events.

Emma K Ward, Nick Simpson, Clare Press

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Emma K WardDepartment of Experimental Psychology, UCL, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, UK.
Nick SimpsonDepartment of Experimental Psychology, UCL, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, UK.
Clare PressDepartment of Experimental Psychology, UCL, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Learning about the statistical structure of our environment is thought to shape perception, but it is unclear how. A recent theory suggests that percepts are initially biased toward the expected, with particularly unexpected observations triggering reactive sensory gain increases-balancing requirements for fast and accurate perception alongside reliable sensory estimates for model updating. Six experiments tested this account, where participants detected visual stimuli on the circumference of, and at the center of, a circle. Circumference stimuli followed a spatial or orientation regularity, which then changed abruptly. Bayesian changepoint modeling showed that hit rates were lower for all events following such disruption of the learned probabilistic structure (hereafter "surprise"). Performance recovery after one change took several trials but became immediate when changes were more frequent. These findings suggest broad perceptual facilitation of the expected regardless of latency, and we thus consider how models may be accurately updated when the world changes, despite poorer perception.

Indexed as

neurosciencepsychologysensory neuroscience

Identifiers

PMID42369034
PMCPMC13293695

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.