Abstract
Expectations can influence perception in seemingly contradictory ways, either by directing attention to expected stimuli and enhancing perceptual acuity or by stabilizing perception and diminishing acuity within expected stimulus categories. The neural mechanisms supporting these dual roles of expectation are not well understood. Here, we trained European starlings to classify ambiguous song syllables in both expected and unexpected acoustic contexts. We show that birds employ probabilistic, Bayesian integration to classify syllables, leveraging their expectations to stabilize their perceptual behavior. However, auditory sensory neural populations do not reflect this integration. Instead, expectation enhances the acuity of auditory sensory neurons in high-probability regions of the stimulus space. This modulation diverges from patterns typically observed in motor areas, where Bayesian integration of sensory inputs and expectations predominates. Our results suggest that peripheral sensory systems use expectation to improve sensory representations and maintain high-fidelity representations of the world, allowing downstream circuits to flexibly integrate this information with expectations to drive behavior.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access through your institution
Change institution
Buy or subscribe
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Learn more
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Learn more
Buy this article
Purchase on SpringerLink
Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Additional access options:
Log in
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Read our FAQs
Contact customer support
Fig. 1: Models of expectation-driven sensory modulation.
Fig. 2: Context-dependent categorical perception paradigm.
Fig. 3: Decision-making behavior reflects Bayesian integration.
Fig. 4: Neurometric functions of single units reflect perceptual likelihood.
Fig. 5: Predictive syllables suppress spike rate.
Fig. 6: Context-dependent spike train modulation reflects change in perceptual acuity and not Bayesian integration.
Fig. 7: Expectation improves perceptual acuity.
Data availability
Data are available at https://zenodo.org/records/7363595 (ref. [75](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-025-01899-1#ref-CR75 "Sainburg, T. European starling categorical perception chronic ephys and behavior dataset. Zenodo
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7363594
(2022).")).
Code availability
Code and code documentation are available at https://github.com/timsainb/cdcp_paper.
References
Ganong, W. F. Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 6, 110–125 (1980).
ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. & Welsh, A. Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cogn. Psychol. 10, 29–63 (1978).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M. & Cutler, A. Prediction, Bayesian inference and feedback in speech recognition. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 31, 4–18 (2016).
ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. Human adults and human infants show a ‘perceptual magnet effect’ for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Percept. Psychophys. 50, 93–107 (1991).
ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5, 831–843 (2004).
ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Feldman, N. H., Griffiths, T. L. & Morgan, J. L. The influence of categories on perception: explaining the perceptual magnet effect as optimal statistical inference. Psychol. Rev. 116, 752–782 (2009).
ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Knill, D. C. & Richards, W. Perception as Bayesian Inference (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
Kuperberg, G. R. & Jaeger, T. F. What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 31, 32–59 (2016).
ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Stocker, A. A. and Simoncelli, E. A Bayesian model of conditioned perception. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2007, 1409–1416 (2007).
Yon, D., Gilbert, S. J., de Lange, F. P., & Press, C. Action sharpens sensory representations of expected outcomes. Nat. Commun. 9, 4288 (2018).
ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Summerfield, C. & De Lange, F. P. Expectation in perceptual decision making: neural and computational mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 15, 745–756 (2014).
ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Kok, P., Jehee, J. F. M. & De Lange, F. P. Less is more: expectation sharpens representations in the primary visual cortex. Neuron 75, 265–270 (2012).
ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Rohenkohl, G., Cravo, A. M., Wyart, V. & Nobre, A. C. Temporal expectation improves the quality of sensory information. J. Neurosci. 32, 8424–8428 (2012).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Correa, Ángel, Lupiáñez, J. & Tudela, P. Í. O. Attentional preparation based on temporal expectancy modulates processing at the perceptual level. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 12, 328–334 (2005).
ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Xin, Y. et al. Sensory-to-category transformation via dynamic reorganization of ensemble structures in mouse auditory cortex. Neuron 103, 909–921 (2019).
ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. & Sjerps, M. J. Speaker normalization in speech perception. In the Handbook of Speech Perception (eds Pardo, J. S. et al.) 145–176 (Wiley, 2021).
Gerrits, E. & Schouten, M. E. H. Categorical perception depends on the discrimination task. Percept. Psychophys. 66, 363–376 (2004).
ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
McMurray, B. The myth of categorical perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 152, 3819–3842 (2022).
ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Ganguli, D. & Simoncelli, E. P. Efficient sensory encoding and Bayesian inference with heterogeneous neural populations. Neural Comput. 26, 2103–2134 (2014).
ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Echeveste, R., Aitchison, L., Hennequin, G. & Lengyel, M. Cortical-like dynamics in recurrent circuits optimized for sampling-based probabilistic inference. Nat. Neurosci. 23, 1138–1149 (2020).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Sohn, H. & Narain, D. Neural implementations of Bayesian inference. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 70, 121–129 (2021).
ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Findling, C. et al. Brain-wide representations of prior information in mouse decision-making. Preprint at bioRxivhttps://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.04.547684 (2023).
Vilares, I. & Kording, K. Bayesian models: the structure of the world, uncertainty, behavior, and the brain. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1224, 22–39 (2011).
ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Darlington, T. R., Beck, J. M. & Lisberger, S. G. Neural implementation of Bayesian inference in a sensorimotor behavior. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 1442–1451 (2018).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Jazayeri, M. & Movshon, J. A. Optimal representation of sensory information by neural populations. Nat. Neurosci. 9, 690–696 (2006).
ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Funamizu, A., Kuhn, B. & Doya, K. Neural substrate of dynamic Bayesian inference in the cerebral cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 1682–1689 (2016).
ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Akrami, A., Kopec, C. D., Diamond, M. E. & Brody, C. D. Posterior parietal cortex represents sensory history and mediates its effects on behaviour. Nature 554, 368–372 (2018).
ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hou, H., Zheng, Q., Zhao, Y., Pouget, A. & Gu, Y. Neural correlates of optimal multisensory decision making under time-varying reliabilities with an invariant linear probabilistic population code. Neuron 104, 1010–1021 (2019).
ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Walker, E. Y., Cotton, R. J., Ma, WeiJi & Tolias, A. S. A neural basis of probabilistic computation in visual cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 23, 122–129 (2020).
ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Yin, P., Strait, D. L., Radtke-Schuller, S., Fritz, J. B. & Shamma, S. A. Dynamics and hierarchical encoding of non-compact acoustic categories in auditory and frontal cortex. Curr. Biol. 30, 1649–1663 (2020).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Sohn, H., Narain, D., Meirhaeghe, N. & Jazayeri, M. Bayesian computation through cortical latent dynamics. Neuron 103, 934–947 (2019).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Berkes, P., Orbán, G., Lengyel, M. & Fiser, J. Spontaneous cortical activity reveals hallmarks of an optimal internal model of the environment. Science 331, 83–87 (2011).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Hiratani, N. & Latham, P. E. Rapid Bayesian learning in the mammalian olfactory system. Nat. Commun. 11, 3845 (2020).
ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Lange, R. D. & Haefner, R. M. Task-induced neural covariability as a signature of approximate Bayesian learning and inference. PLoS Comput. Biol. 18, e1009557 (2022).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
International Brain Laboratory et al. A brain-wide map of neural activity during complex behaviour. Preprint at bioRxivhttps://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.04.547681 (2023).
Mirza, M. B., Adams, R. A., Friston, K. & Parr, T. Introducing a Bayesian model of selective attention based on active inference. Sci. Rep. 9, 13915 (2019).
ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Friston, K., FitzGerald, T., Rigoli, F., Schwartenbeck, P. & Pezzulo, G. Active inference: a process theory. Neural Comput. 29, 1–49 (2017).
ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Todorovic, A., van Ede, F., Maris, E. & de Lange, F. P. Prior expectation mediates neural adaptation to repeated sounds in the auditory cortex: an MEG study. J. Neurosci. 31, 9118–9123 (2011).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Todorovic, A., Schoffelen, J.-M., Van Ede, F., Maris, E. & De Lange, F. P. Temporal expectation and attention jointly modulate auditory oscillatory activity in the beta band. PLoS ONE 10, e0120288 (2015).
ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Block, N. The puzzle of perceptual precision. Open Mind (2014).
Anton-Erxleben, K. & Carrasco, M. Attentional enhancement of spatial resolution: linking behavioural and neurophysiological evidence. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 188–200 (2013).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Prather, J. F., Nowicki, S., Anderson, R. C., Peters, S. & Mooney, R. Neural correlates of categorical perception in learned vocal communication. Nat. Neurosci. 12, 221–228 (2009).
ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Lachlan, R. F. & Nowicki, S. Context-dependent categorical perception in a songbird. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 1892–1897 (2015).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Hubel, D. H. & Wiesel, T. N. Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex. J. Physiol. 160, 106–154 (1962).
ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Fechner, G. T. Elements of Psychophysics, 1860 (Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1948).
Singh, N. C. & Theunissen, F. E. Modulation spectra of natural sounds and ethological theories of auditory processing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114, 3394–3411 (2003).
ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Hauber, M. E., Cassey, P., Woolley, S. & Theunissen, F. E. Neurophysiological response selectivity for conspecific songs over synthetic sounds in the auditory forebrain of non-singing female songbirds. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 193, 765–774 (2007).
ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Olshausen, B. A. & Field, D. J. Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images. Nature 381, 607–609 (1996).
ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. C. & Lewicki, M. S. Efficient auditory coding. Nature 439, 978–982 (2006).
ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Kingma, D. P. & Welling, M. Auto-encoding variational Bayes. Preprint at arxiv.org/abs/1312.6114 (2013).
Ashwood, Z. C. et al. Mice alternate between discrete strategies during perceptual decision-making. Nat. Neurosci. 25, 201–212 (2022).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Bogacz, R., Brown, E., Moehlis, J., Holmes, P. & Cohen, J. D. The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. Psychol. Rev. 113, 700–765 (2006).
ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L. & Arnell, K. M. Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: an attentional blink? J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 18, 849–860 (1992).
ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Treisman, A. M. & Gelade, G. A feature-integration theory of attention. Cogn. Psychol. 12, 97–136 (1980).
ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Kozlov, A. S. & Gentner, T. Q. Central auditory neurons have composite receptive fields. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1441–1446 (2016).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Chang, E. F. et al. Categorical speech representation in human superior temporal gyrus. Nat. Neurosci. 13, 1428–1432 (2010).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Best, C. T. & Tyler, M. D. Nonnative and second-language speech perception. In Language Experience in Second Language Speech Learning (Bohn, O.-S. & Munro, M. J.) 13–34 (John Benjamins, 2007).
Sainburg, T. & Gentner, T. Q. Toward a computational neuroethology of vocal communication: from bioacoustics to neurophysiology, emerging tools and future directions. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 15, 811737 (2021).
ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Arneodo, Z., Sainburg, T., Jeanne, J. & Gentner, T. An acoustically isolated European starling song library. Zenodohttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3237217 (2019).
Sainburg, T., Thielk, M. & Gentner, T. Q. Finding, visualizing, and quantifying latent structure across diverse animal vocal repertoires. PLoS Comput. Biol. 16, e1008228 (2020).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Körding, K. P. & Wolpert, D. M. Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning. Nature 427, 244–247 (2004).
ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Newville, M. et al. lmfit/lmfit-py: 1.0.3. Zenodohttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.598352 (2021).
Pachitariu, M., Steinmetz, N. A., Kadir, S. N., Carandini, M. & Harris, K. D. Fast and accurate spike sorting of high-channel count probes with KiloSort. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 29, 4448–4456 (2016).
Google Scholar
Buccino, A. P. et al. SpikeInterface, a unified framework for spike sorting. eLife 9, e61834 (2020).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
De Groof, G. et al. A three-dimensional digital atlas of the starling brain. Brain Struct. Funct. 221, 1899–1909 (2016).
ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Güntürkün, O. The avian ‘prefrontal cortex’ and cognition. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 15, 686–693 (2005).
ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Kröner, S. & Güntürkün, O. Afferent and efferent connections of the caudolateral neostriatum in the pigeon (Columba livia): a retro- and anterograde pathway tracing study. J. Comp. Neurol. 407, 228–260 (1999).
3.0.CO;2-2" data-track-item_id="10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19990503)407:2<228::AID-CNE6>3.0.CO;2-2" data-track-value="article reference" data-track-action="article reference" href="https://doi.org/10.1002%2F%28SICI%291096-9861%2819990503%29407%3A2%3C228%3A%3AAID-CNE6%3E3.0.CO%3B2-2" aria-label="Article reference 67" data-doi="10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19990503)407:2<228::AID-CNE6>3.0.CO;2-2">ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Nieder, A. Inside the corvid brain—probing the physiology of cognition in crows. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 16, 8–14 (2017).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
Fellous, J.-M., Tiesinga, P. H. E., Thomas, P. J. & Sejnowski, T. J. Discovering spike patterns in neuronal responses. J. Neurosci. 24, 2989–3001 (2004).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, S., Fellous, J.-M., Whitmer, D., Tiesinga, P. & Sejnowski, T. J. A new correlation-based measure of spike timing reliability. Neurocomputing 52, 925–931 (2003).
ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Theilman, B., Perks, K. & Gentner, T. Q. Spike train coactivity encodes learned natural stimulus invariances in songbird auditory cortex. J. Neurosci. 41, 73–88 (2021).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Jeanne, J. M., Sharpee, T. O. & Gentner, T. Q. Associative learning enhances population coding by inverting interneuronal correlation patterns. Neuron 78, 352–363 (2013).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Panzeri, S., Moroni, M., Safaai, H. & Harvey, C. D. The structures and functions of correlations in neural population codes. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 23, 551–567 (2022).
ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, J. D., Rowekamp, R. J., Sincich, L. C. & Sharpee, T. O. Second order dimensionality reduction using minimum and maximum mutual information models. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7, e1002249 (2011).
ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Sainburg, T. European starling categorical perception chronic ephys and behavior dataset. Zenodohttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7363594 (2022).
Download references
Acknowledgements
T.S. acknowledges support from a CARTA Fellowship to T.S. and NIH 5T32MH020002-20 to T.S. T.Q.G. acknowledges support from NIH 5R01DC018055-02. PTM acknowledges support from the Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind (IRG no. 2021-1759), ‘La Caixa’ Foundation and an IIE Fulbright Fellowship. E.M.A. acknowledges support from a Pew Latin American Fellowship in the Biomedical Sciences and the Kavli Institute for the Brain and Mind (IRG no. 2021-1759). We thank B. Datta, J. Pearl, A. Pouget and C. Findling for valuable feedback on the manuscript.
Author information
Author notes
These authors contributed equally: Tim Sainburg, Trevor S. McPherson.
Authors and Affiliations
Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
Tim Sainburg, Ezequiel M. Arneodo, Srihita Rudraraju, Michael Turvey & Timothy Q. Gentner
Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
Tim Sainburg
Neurosciences Graduate Program, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
Trevor S. McPherson, Bradley H. Theilman, Marvin Thielk & Timothy Q. Gentner
Departamento de Física, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina
Ezequiel M. Arneodo
Department of Bioengineering, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
Pablo Tostado Marcos
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
Pablo Tostado Marcos
Institute for Neural Computation, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
Pablo Tostado Marcos
Neurobiology Section, Division of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
Timothy Q. Gentner
Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
Timothy Q. Gentner
Authors
Tim Sainburg
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar
2. Trevor S. McPherson
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar
3. Ezequiel M. Arneodo
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar
4. Srihita Rudraraju
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar
5. Michael Turvey
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar
6. Bradley H. Theilman
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar
7. Pablo Tostado Marcos
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar
8. Marvin Thielk
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar
9. Timothy Q. Gentner
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar
Contributions
T.S., T.S.M. and T.Q.G. designed experiments. T.S. and T.S.M. carried out experiments. E.M.A., S.R., M. Turvey, B.H.T., P.T.M. and M. Thielk aided in carrying out experiments and provided advice on study design. T.S.M. performed all analyses related to MNE receptive fields. T.S. performed all other analyses. T.S., T.S.M. and T.Q.G. wrote the paper; all other authors provided feedback.
Corresponding authors
Correspondence to Tim Sainburg or Timothy Q. Gentner.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Neuroscience thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Response times reflect Bayesian integration.
(A) Response time across birds for correct versus incorrect trials. (B; top) The imposed prior probability in the task for each condition. (B; bottom) Average response time over morph for each cue condition (mean and 95% bootstrapped CI). (C) Response time over the morph for each bird (mean and 95% bootstrapped CI). (D) Decay constants of exponential decay fit to reaction time as a function of distance from decision boundary, in relation to the slope of the fit psychometric function, for each bird and morph. Point colors reflect the morph categories (as in Fig. 3G) (Pearson’s correlation, n=121).
Extended Data Fig. 2 Recording sites.
(A) Diagram of auditory input to the songbird brain. Nuclei OV projects to the primary auditory region Field L, which has bidirectionally projections with NCM and CMM. NCL (not pictured), lateral to NCM, additionally exhibits bilateral projections with Field L. (B) A visualization of recording sites, shown over top of the starling brain atlas65. Colors are consistent with panel A, with NCL being shown in purple. (C) The top of each panel shows a spectrogram of the morph stimulus played back. Below, a trace is shown for three cue conditions (No cue, P(Rl∣C) = 0.125, and P(Rl∣C) = 0.875) corresponding to the average Gaussian convolved spike vector and 95% CI for active trials. Below the trace are sample spike rasters for each cue condition, where each row is a trial. Below the rasters, the sample trace and raster plots are repeated for the same unit in the passive trial condition.
Extended Data Fig. 3 An outline of the acuity trade-off model.
(A) A decrease in measurement/representational noise reduces similarity and improves discriminability between stimuli. (B) When stimuli are sampled from regions of stimulus space that are sufficiently close to one another, similarity increases in the task-relevant dimension. (C) The difference between similarity matrices for the left-cued and right-cued syllables, based upon the 1D task-relevant model. The example from (A) and (B) are marked as dots with arrows pointing towards them. (D) Empirical results from our study. The observed shift in spike train vector cosine similarity for left-cued minus right-cued trials. The shift is depicted here is averaged across units and morphs. Compare to (C), where the diagonal does not match the predictions from the 1D model. (E) Predictions of the acuity trade-off model. If there are 0 task-irrelevant dimensions, points that are close to each other in stimulus space will become more similar because noise in measurement is reduced. As more task-relevant dimensions are added, the similarity of close points decreases. (F) A scatterplot of the noise in measurement for task-relevant and irrelevant dimensions under the acuity trade-off model. When a stimulus is cued, the noise in measurement is reduced in a task-relevant dimension (here the morph dimension) and noise is increased in another dimension.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Maximum Noise Entropy encoder model fit to neural data.
(A) A sample MNE receptive field prediction. (top) Raw spectrogram of the target syllable on an individual trial. (middle) Actual (red) and receptive field model predicted (teal) spiking probability (same trial). (bottom) Raster plot of spiking events (same trial). (B) Correlation values between actual and predicted spiking for cue-valid vs. cue-invalid trials. Trial correlation values were averaged across valid or invalid trials for each unit on an example recording day (N = 98 units). (C) Box plots for the distribution of trial averaged correlation values (as in H) for all units broken down by cue-validity and strength. (* indicates significantly increased correlation value for valid verses invalid trials, post-hoc t-test, Cue 0.125, t(9078) = 19.5, p < 0.001; Cue 0.25, t(9377) = 18.2, p < 0.001; Cue 0.75, t(9379) = 18.6, p < 0.001; Cue 0.875, t(9101) = 17.0, p < 0.001).
Extended Data Fig. 5 Example units (rows) for each brain region, showing stability in response profiles to example stimuli (columns) across days/weeks.
The units shown are the 3 longest-held units for each brain region. PSTHs are shown for the 1-second reinforced stimuli.
Extended Data Fig. 6 Spectrograms of 8 sample morph points (of 128 total) from each morph used in the experiment.
The starting morph points are written above the left and rightmost syllables.
Extended Data Fig. 7 Method for computing a neurometric function from a similarity matrix.
SC1 (Similarity to Category 1) and SC1 (Similarity to Category 2) represent the within and between category similarities.
Extended Data Fig. 8 Sample units for each subject sorted by the categoricality metric.
Each plot depicts the average firing rate across a randomly sampled unit, sorted by the categoricality metric, with time on the X-axis and morph position on the Y-axis. Rows correspond to the subject written on the left.
Extended Data Fig. 9 Sample units for each morph sorted by the categoricality metric.
Each plot depicts the average firing rate across a randomly sampled unit, sorted by the categoricality metric, with time on the X-axis and morph position on the Y-axis. Rows correspond to the morph written to the left.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Tables 1–3 and Figs. 1–16
Reporting Summary
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark
Cite this article
Sainburg, T., McPherson, T.S., Arneodo, E.M. et al. Expectation-driven sensory adaptations support enhanced acuity during categorical perception. Nat Neurosci (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-025-01899-1
Download citation
Received:07 February 2023
Accepted:21 January 2025
Published:13 March 2025
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-025-01899-1
Share this article
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Get shareable link
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative