Localizing hierarchical prediction errors and precisions during an oddball task with volatility: Computational insights and relationship with psychosocial functioning in healthy individuals

Fig. 1.. Mismatch volatility schedule and computational model. (A) Volatility schedule of mismatch negativity paradigm. (B) Three-level hierarchical Gaussian filter (HGF) binary perceptual model.

Fig. 2.. Event-Related Potential (ERP) Scalp Topographies: On the left, scalp voltage topography maps displaying group mean grand-average ERPs. The MMN component was averaged from 150 to 200 ms post-stimulus, and the P3a component was averaged from 250 to 300 ms post-stimulus. All maps are plotted on the same voltage scale (μV). On the right, event-related potential difference waveforms at the FCz and Cz electrodes are shown for the overall difference waveform for the entire paradigm, along with the stable and volatile difference waveforms.

Fig. 3.. Mismatch responses in volatile phases are reduced compared to stable phases. (A) Maximum intensity projectiont-map illustrating the contrast between stable MMN < volatile MMN ERPs across anterior to posterior scalp locations (top). Significant peak-level effects (p <0.05, whole-volume FWE-corrected) are outlined by black contours, while the coloured area indicatest-values exceeding the cluster-defining threshold ofp <0.001, uncorrected. The yellow bar at the bottom of thet-map indicates the time range of significant peak effects, from earliest to latest significant time points. On the left, the scalp map displays the peak effect of the given cluster using anF-map at the indicated PST, displayed on a 2D sensor layout. On the right, difference waveforms (deviant–standard) are shown for each phase, with the chosen sensor location on the scalp map marked with a star. (B) Expression of clusters in time x sensor space where ERPs to tones in stable phases were more positive than ERPs to tones in volatile phase. MMN: mismatch negativity; PST: peri-stimulus time; FWE: family wise error.

Fig. 4.. Positive correlation of the difference waveform with psychosocial function. (A–D) Maximum intensity projectiont-map illustrating the correlation between global function (GF) and difference waveform ERPs across and anterior to posterior scalp locations (top). Significant peak-level effects (p <0.05, whole-volume FWE-corrected) are outlined by black contours, while the colored area indicatest-values exceeding the cluster-defining threshold ofp <0.001, uncorrected. The yellow bar at the bottom of thet-map indicates the time range of significant peak effects, from earliest to latest significant time points. In the absence of a yellow bar, only cluster-level effects were significant. Note the statistical analysis was limited to 100–400 ms post-stimulus. On the left, the grand-average ERPs for standard, deviant, and their difference waveform (deviant – standard) at the peak effect location are shown. The shaded gray area indicates the duration of the significant effect for the specified cluster. On the right, the scalp map highlights the selected sensor location, marked by a star. The scalp map displays the peak effect of the given cluster using anF-map at the indicated PST, displayed…

Fig. 5.. Cortical sources associated with functional impairment. (A) A negative correlation between the stable mismatch response and GF: Role scores were observed, peaking at 160 ms (301–309 ms) in the left superior temporal gyrus (STG). The source activation estimated from the difference waveform (MMN) at the peak time point (160 ms) is depicted using an SPM-glass brain (left). Significantt-contrasts of the stable mismatch response and global function (GF) scores are presented for the given source (left STG) over peri-stimulus time (PST) (middle). The significance threshold using peak-family wise error (FWE) correction is indicated by the red horizontal line, and all time points above this threshold are colored in blue. The peak time point is marked by the blue vertical line. The scatter plot (right) illustrates the relationship between GF scores and the stable MMN amplitude at the peak time point (160 ms) and source (left STG). (B) A negative correlation between the low-level (δ1) and (C) high-level (δ2) unweighted prediction errors (PEs) and global function (GF): Role scores was observed, peaking at 156 ms in the right STG. The source activation was estimated from the grand-averaged…

Fig. 6.. Unweighted prediction error (PE) and precision ratio expression. Maximum intensity projectionF-map illustrating the effect of (A) low-level sensory PEs (ε2), (B) high-level volatility PEs (ε3), (C) low-level sensory precision ratio (ψ2), and (D) high-level volatility precision ratio (ψ3) on EEG amplitudes across anterior to posterior scalp locations (top). Significant peak-level effects (p <0.05, whole-volume FWE-corrected) are outlined by black contours, while the colored area indicatesF-values exceeding the cluster-defining threshold ofp <0.001, uncorrected. The yellow bar at the bottom of theF-map indicates the time range of significant peak effects, from earliest to latest significant time points. On the left, the scalp map displays the peak effect of the given cluster using anF-map at the indicated PST, displayed on a 2D sensor layout. On the right, ERPs were averaged across the electrode at the peak of the significant clusters using the 10% largest and 10% smallest PE (or precision ratio) values. The selected electrode position indicated by a star on the scalp map. MMN: mismatch negativity; PST: peri-stimulus time; FWE: family wise error.