Key result
Worse-than-expected outcomes lengthen the second post-feedback heartbeat by ~1.2 ms per prediction error unit.
Why the study?
Direct evidence that interbeat intervals exhibit graded scaling with prediction during probabilistic learning remains limited.
Individual cardiac cycles carry separable millisecond-resolved signatures of anticipation, orienting, and feedback-based updating, demonstrating how predictive processing propagates into human autonomic physiology.
Extends predictive processing to human cardiac responses; leaves open relevance for clinical risk assessment or interventions.
Heart rate continuously adjusts to accommodate perception and action, and these shifts are frequently explained through predictive processes. Yet direct evidence that interbeat intervals exhibit graded scaling with prediction remains limited. Here we investigate millisecond-resolved physiological signatures of prediction processing using a mechanistically constrained analysis of beat-to-beat cardiac dynamics. We analysed trial-by-trial electrocardiogram and electroencephalogram recordings from 34 participants performing a probabilistic learning task. We quantified stimulus-locked cardiac responses as changes between consecutive interbeat intervals and accounted for cardiac phase at feedback. This single-beat approach separated anticipatory slowing, stimulus-locked parasympathetic brake, and subsequent acceleration. Anticipatory deceleration and rebound acceleration scaled with model-derived expectations, whereas the second heartbeat after feedback tracked signed prediction errors and outcome valence, particularly when feedback occurred early in the cardiac cycle. Peak stimulus-locked cardiac deceleration covaried with parietal P3b rather than prediction features. Thus, individual cardiac cycles carry separable signatures of anticipation, orienting, and feedback-based updating. These findings demonstrate how predictive processing propagates into human autonomic physiology on a beat-to-beat timescale and provide an interpretable, mechanistically grounded framework for quantifying brain-body co-modulation during adaptive behaviour.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Azanova et al. (2026) studied Healthy adults (n=34). Probabilistic approach-avoidance learning task (prediction and feedback processing) vs. Within-subject variations in expectation and prediction errors was evaluated on Change in interbeat interval at the second heartbeat after feedback (R2) scaling with signed prediction error (-1.2 ms per PE unit, 95% CI -2.1 to -0.4, p=BF 16). Worse-than-expected outcomes significantly reduced post-feedback cardiac acceleration, lengthening the second post-feedback heartbeat by 1.2 ms per unit of signed prediction error.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: