IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1013053.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expectation generation and its effect on subsequent pain and visual perception

Author

Listed:
  • Rotem Botvinik-Nezer
  • Stephan Geuter
  • Martin A Lindquist
  • Tor D Wager

Abstract

Bayesian accounts of perception, such as predictive processing, suggest that perceptions integrate expectations and sensory experience, and thus assimilate to expected values. Furthermore, more precise expectations should have stronger influences on perception. We tested these hypotheses using a within-subject paradigm that independently manipulated the mean, variance (precision), and skewness of cues presented as ratings from 10 prior participants. Forty-five participants reported their expectations regarding the painfulness of thermal stimuli or the visual contrast of flickering checkerboards. In a second session, similar (sham) cues were each followed by either a noxious thermal or a visual stimulus. Perceptions assimilated to cue-based expectations in both modalities, but precision effects were modality-specific: more precise cues enhanced assimilation in visual perception only, while higher uncertainty slightly increased reported pain. fMRI analysis revealed that the cues affected higher-level affective and cognitive systems–including assimilation to the cue mean in a neuromarker of endogenous pain processing and in the nucleus accumbens, and activity consistent with aversive prediction-error-like encoding in the periaqueductal gray during pain perception–but not early perceptual processing systems. Furthermore, behavioral and computational models of the expectation session revealed that expectations were biased towards extreme values in both modalities, and towards low-pain cues specifically. These findings suggest that predictive processing theories should be extended with mechanisms such as selective attention to outliers, and that expectation generation and its perceptual effects are mostly modality-specific and primarily influence higher-level processes rather than early perception, at least when cues are not reinforced.Author summary: Expectations shape how we perceive the world, influencing both what we feel and what we see. But how do we form these expectations, and how do they affect our perception? We investigated how people generate expectations about upcoming pain and visual stimuli based on complex multi-attribute social cues—ratings of 10 other participants—and how these expectations influence perception and brain activity. Using behavioral experiments and computational modeling, we found that people rely heavily on an average summary of complex cue features when forming expectations, but extreme values also play a role, especially in lowering pain expectations when signaling lower pain. Perceptual judgments in both modalities tended to shift toward expected values, but the uncertainty of these expectations affected perception in different ways across pain and vision, and were only consistent with precision-weighted integration of cue information posited by predictive processing accounts in vision. Our neural findings suggest that expectations do not directly alter early sensory processing but instead shape how information is interpreted at later decision-making stages. These insights enhance our understanding of how the brain integrates contextual cues and may inform better approaches to pain management and sensory disorders.

Suggested Citation

  • Rotem Botvinik-Nezer & Stephan Geuter & Martin A Lindquist & Tor D Wager, 2025. "Expectation generation and its effect on subsequent pain and visual perception," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(5), pages 1-30, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1013053
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013053
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013053&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013053?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1013053. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.