You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 35.175.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪JJMC89‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a colocation provider's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host or colocation provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host or colocation provider.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 05:20, 2 March 2025.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪Jon Kolbert‬. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected .
- Start of block: 05:38, 21 February 2024
- Expiry of block: 05:38, 21 February 2029
Your current IP address is 35.175.116.192. The blocked range is 35.175.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

((short description|Theory of brain function))
((for|the speech processing technology|Linear predictive coding))
((Multiple issues|
((technical|date=June 2017))
((citation style|date=May 2017))
))

In [[neuroscience]], '''predictive coding''' (also known as '''predictive processing''') is a theory of [[brain]] function which postulates that the brain is constantly generating and updating a "[[mental model]]" of the environment. According to the theory, such a mental model is used to predict input signals from the [[Sense|senses]] that are then compared with the actual input signals from those senses.<ref>((cite arXiv |eprint=2107.12979 |class=cs.AI |first1=Beren |last1=Millidge |first2=Anil |last2=Seth |title=Predictive Coding: a Theoretical and Experimental Review |date=2022-01-19 |last3=Buckley |first3=Christopher))</ref> With the rising popularity of [[Feature learning|representation learning]], the theory is being actively pursued and applied in [[machine learning]] and related fields.<ref>((Cite arXiv |last1=Millidge |first1=Beren |last2=Salvatori |first2=Tommaso |last3=Song |first3=Yuhang |last4=Bogacz |first4=Rafal |last5=Lukasiewicz |first5=Thomas |date=2022-02-18 |title=Predictive Coding: Towards a Future of Deep Learning beyond Backpropagation? |class=cs.NE |eprint=2202.09467 ))</ref><ref>((Cite journal |last1=Ororbia|first1=Alexander G.|last2=Kifer|first2=Daniel |date=2022-04-19 |title=The Neural Coding Framework for Learning Generative Models |journal=Nature Communications |volume=13 |issue=1 |page=2064 |doi=10.1038/s41467-022-29632-7 |pmid=35440589 |pmc=9018730 |doi-access=free ))</ref>

The phrase 'predictive coding' is also used in several other disciplines such as signal-processing technologies and law in loosely-related or unrelated senses.

==Origins==
Theoretical ancestors to predictive coding date back as early as 1860 with [[Helmholtz]]'s concept of [[unconscious inference]].<ref>((Cite web |date=2018-03-20 |title=Helmholtz's Treatise on Physiological Optics - Free |url=http://poseidon.sunyopt.edu/BackusLab/Helmholtz/ |access-date=2022-01-05 |website= |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180320133752/http://poseidon.sunyopt.edu/BackusLab/Helmholtz/ |archive-date=20 March 2018 |url-status=dead))</ref> Unconscious inference refers to the idea that the human brain fills in visual information to make sense of a scene. For example, if something is relatively smaller than another object in the visual field, the brain uses that information as a likely cue of depth, such that the perceiver ultimately (and involuntarily) experiences depth. The understanding of perception as the interaction between sensory stimuli (bottom-up) and conceptual knowledge (top-down) continued to be established by [[Jerome Bruner]] who, starting in the 1940s, studied the ways in which needs, motivations and expectations influence perception, research that came to be known as 'New Look' psychology. In 1981, [[James McClelland (psychologist)|McClelland]] and [[David Rumelhart|Rumelhart]] in their seminal paper<ref>((cite journal |author1=McClelland, J. L. |author2=Rumelhart, D. E. |name-list-style=amp |title=An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings |journal=Psychological Review |date=1981 |volume=88 |issue=5 |pages=375–407 |doi=10.1037/0033-295X.88.5.375))</ref> examined the interaction between processing features (lines and contours) which form letters, which in turn form words. While the features suggest the presence of a word, they found that when letters were situated in the context of a word, people were able to identify them faster than when they were situated in a non-word without semantic context. McClelland and Rumelhart's parallel processing model describes perception as the meeting of top-down (conceptual) and bottom-up (sensory) elements.

In the late 1990s, the idea of top-down and bottom-up processing was translated into a computational model of vision by [[Rajesh Rao|Rao]] and [[Dana H. Ballard|Ballard]].<ref name="rb">((cite journal | doi=10.1038/4580 | title=Predictive coding in the visual cortex: A functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects | year=1999 | last1=Rao | first1=Rajesh P. N. | last2=Ballard | first2=Dana H. | journal=Nature Neuroscience | volume=2 | issue=1 | pages=79–87 | pmid=10195184 ))</ref> Their paper demonstrated that there could be a [[generative model]] of a scene (top-down processing), which would receive feedback via error signals (how much the visual input varied from the prediction), which would subsequently lead to updating the prediction. The computational model was able to replicate well-established receptive field effects, as well as less understood extra-classical receptive field effects such as [[Hypercomplex cell|end-stopping]]. 

In 2004,<ref>((Cite journal |last=Grush |first=Rick |date=2004 |title=The emulation theory of representation: Motor control, imagery, and perception |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0140525X04000093/type/journal_article |journal=Behavioral and Brain Sciences |language=en |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=377–396 |doi=10.1017/S0140525X04000093 |pmid=15736871 |s2cid=514252 |issn=0140-525X))</ref> Rick Grush proposed a model of neural perceptual processing according to which the brain constantly generates predictions based on a generative model (what Grush called an ‘emulator’), and compares that prediction to the actual sensory input. The difference, or ‘sensory residual’ would then be used to update the model so as to produce a more accurate estimate of the perceived domain. On Grush’s account, the top-down and bottom up signals would be combined in a way sensitive to the expected noise (aka uncertainty) in the bottom-up signal, so that in situations in which the sensory signal was known to be less trustworthy, the top-down prediction would be given greater weight, and vice-versa. The emulation framework was also shown to be hierarchical, with modality-specific emulators providing top-down expectations for sensory signals as well as higher-level emulators providing expectations of the distal causes of those signals. Grush applied the theory to visual perception, visual and motor imagery, language, and theory of mind phenomena.

Today, the fields of computer science and cognitive science incorporate these same concepts to create the multilayer generative models that underlie machine learning and neural nets.<ref>((cite journal | doi=10.1016/j.tics.2007.09.004 | title=Learning multiple layers of representation | year=2007 | last1=Hinton | first1=Geoffrey E. | journal=Trends in Cognitive Sciences | volume=11 | issue=10 | pages=428–434 | pmid=17921042 | s2cid=15066318 ))</ref>

== General framework ==

[[File:PredictiveCodingX2.svg|thumb|Conceptual Schematic of Predictive Coding with 2 levels]]

Most of the research literature in the field has been about [[sensory perception]], particularly vision, which is more easily conceptualized. However, the predictive coding framework could also be applied to different neural systems. Taking the sensory system as an example, the brain solves the seemingly intractable problem of modelling distal causes of sensory input through a version of [[Bayesian inference]]. It does this by modelling predictions of lower-level sensory inputs via backward connections from relatively higher levels in a cortical hierarchy.<ref name=":0">((cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0140525X12000477 | title=Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science | year=2013 | last1=Clark | first1=Andy | journal=Behavioral and Brain Sciences | volume=36 | issue=3 | pages=181–204 | pmid=23663408 | s2cid=220661158 | doi-access=free ))</ref> Constrained by the statistical regularities of the outside world (and certain [[Evolutionary psychology|evolutionarily]] prepared predictions), the brain encodes top-down generative models at various temporal and spatial scales in order to predict and effectively suppress sensory inputs rising up from lower levels. A comparison between predictions (priors) and sensory input (likelihood) yields a difference measure (e.g. prediction error, free energy, or surprise) which, if it is sufficiently large beyond the levels of expected statistical noise, will cause the generative model to update so that it better predicts sensory input in the future.

In general, it can be more easily stated that it minimizes the amount of surprise (the measure of difference). This is also the reason for what is nowadays called [[confirmation bias]] or what might historically be [[prejudice]] (although the latter has more negative connotations) since it better fits one's individual experience accumulated so far and supports consistency. Therefore, this turns out to be rather a disadvantage in today's world.<ref>((Cite journal|title=A Theory of Predictive Dissonance: Predictive Processing Presents a New Take on Cognitive Dissonance|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|year=2018|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02218|pmid=30524333|doi-access=free|last1=Kaaronen|first1=R. O.|volume=9|page=2218|pmc=6262368))</ref>

If, instead, the model accurately predicts driving sensory signals, activity at higher levels cancels out activity at lower levels, and the posterior probability of the model is increased. Thus, predictive coding inverts the conventional view of perception as a mostly bottom-up process, suggesting that it is largely constrained by prior predictions, where signals from the external world only shape perception to the extent that they are propagated up the cortical hierarchy in the form of prediction error.

In predictive coding, errors are neither good nor bad, but simply signal the difference between the expected and actual input. The exception is in reward processing, where a better than expected reward produces a positive prediction error and a disappointing result produces a negative prediction error.<ref>((Cite journal|last=Schultz|first=Wolfram|date=2016-02-11|title=Dopamine reward prediction-error signalling: a two-component response|journal=Nature Reviews Neuroscience |volume=17|issue=3 |pages=183–195|doi=10.1038/nrn.2015.26 |pmid=26865020 |pmc=5549862 ))</ref>

===Precision weighting===
 
Expectations about the precision (or inverse variance) of incoming sensory input are crucial for effectively minimizing prediction error in that the expected precision of a given prediction error can inform confidence in that error, which influences the extent to which the error is weighted in updating predictions.<ref>((cite journal | doi=10.3389/fnhum.2010.00215 | doi-access=free | title=Attention, Uncertainty, and Free-Energy | year=2010 | last1=Friston | first1=Karl J. | last2=Feldman | first2=Harriet | journal=Frontiers in Human Neuroscience | volume=4 | page=215 | pmid=21160551 | pmc=3001758 ))</ref> Given that the world we live in is loaded with [[statistical noise]], precision expectations must be represented as part of the brain's generative models, and they should be able to flexibly adapt to changing contexts. For instance, the expected precision of visual prediction errors likely varies between dawn and dusk, such that greater conditional confidence is assigned to errors in broad daylight than errors in prediction at nightfall.<ref>((cite journal | doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00096 | doi-access=free | title=Attention and Conscious Perception in the Hypothesis Testing Brain | year=2012 | last1=Hohwy | first1=Jakob | journal=Frontiers in Psychology | volume=3 | page=96 | pmid=22485102 | pmc=3317264 ))</ref> It has recently been proposed that such weighting of prediction errors in proportion to their estimated precision is, in essence, [[attention]],<ref name="kf">((cite journal | doi=10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.005 | title=The free-energy principle: A rough guide to the brain? | year=2009 | last1=Friston | first1=Karl | journal=Trends in Cognitive Sciences | volume=13 | issue=7 | pages=293–301 | pmid=19559644 | s2cid=9139776 ))</ref> and that the process of devoting attention may be neurobiologically accomplished by [[Reticular activating system|ascending reticular activating systems]] (ARAS) optimizing the “gain” of prediction error units.

===Active inference===
The same principle of prediction error minimization has been used to provide an account of behavior in which motor actions are not commands but descending proprioceptive predictions. In this scheme of [[active inference]], classical reflex arcs are coordinated so as to selectively sample sensory input in ways that better fulfill predictions, thereby minimizing proprioceptive prediction errors.<ref name="kf"/> Indeed, Adams et al. (2013) review evidence suggesting that this view of hierarchical predictive coding in the motor system provides a principled and neurally plausible framework for explaining the agranular organization of the motor cortex.<ref name=":1">((cite journal | doi=10.1007/s00429-012-0475-5 | title=Predictions not commands: Active inference in the motor system | year=2013 | last1=Adams | first1=Rick A. | last2=Shipp | first2=Stewart | last3=Friston | first3=Karl J. | journal=Brain Structure and Function | volume=218 | issue=3 | pages=611–643 | pmid=23129312 | pmc=3637647 ))</ref> This view suggests that “perceptual and motor systems should not be regarded as separate but instead as a single active inference machine that tries to predict its sensory input in all domains: visual, auditory, somatosensory, interoceptive and, in the case of the motor system, proprioceptive."<ref name=":1" />

==Neural theory in predictive coding==
Evaluating the empirical evidence that suggests a neurologically plausible basis for predictive coding is a broad and varied task. For one thing, and according to the model, predictive coding occurs at every iterative step in the perceptual and cognitive processes; accordingly, manifestations of predictive coding in the brain include genetics, specific cytoarchitecture of cells, systemic networks of neurons, and whole brain analyses. Due to this range of specificity, different methods of investigating the neural mechanisms of predictive coding have been applied, where available; more generally, however, and at least as it relates to humans, there are significant methodological limitations to investigating the potential evidence and much of the work is based on computational modeling of microcircuits in the brain. Notwithstanding, there has been substantial (theoretical) work that has been applied to understanding predictive coding mechanisms in the brain. This section will focus on specific evidence as it relates to the predictive coding phenomenon, rather than analogues, such as homeostasis (which are, nonetheless, integral to our overall understanding of Bayesian inference but already supported heavily; see [[Andy Clark|Clark]] for a review<ref name=":0" />).

Much of the early work that applied a predictive coding framework to neural mechanisms came from sensory neurons, particularly in the visual cortex.<ref name="rb"/><ref>((cite journal | doi=10.1038/320362a0 | title=Generation of end-inhibition in the visual cortex via interlaminar connections | year=1986 | last1=Bolz | first1=Jürgen | last2=Gilbert | first2=Charles D. | journal=Nature | volume=320 | issue=6060 | pages=362–365 | pmid=3960119 | bibcode=1986Natur.320..362B | s2cid=4325899 ))</ref>

More generally, however, what seems to be required by the theory are (at least) two types of neurons (at every level of the perceptual hierarchy): one set of neurons that encode incoming sensory input, so called feed-forward projections; one set of neurons that send down predictions, so called feed-backward projections. It is important to note that these neurons must also carry properties of error detection; which class of neurons has these properties is still up for debate.<ref>((Cite journal|last1=Koster-Hale|first1=Jorie|last2=Saxe|first2=Rebecca|date=2013-09-04|title=Theory of Mind: A Neural Prediction Problem|journal=Neuron|language=en|volume=79|issue=5|pages=836–848|doi=10.1016/j.neuron.2013.08.020|pmid=24012000|pmc=4041537|issn=0896-6273|doi-access=free))</ref><ref name="as">((cite journal | doi=10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.007 | title=Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self | year=2013 | last1=Seth | first1=Anil K. | journal=Trends in Cognitive Sciences | volume=17 | issue=11 | pages=565–573 | pmid=24126130 | s2cid=3048221 | doi-access=free ))</ref> These sort of neurons have found support in superficial and non-superficial pyramidal neurons.

At a more whole-brain level, there is evidence that different [[cerebral cortex#Layers | cortical layers]] (aka laminae) may facilitate the integration of feedforward and feed-backward projections across hierarchies. These cortical layers, divided into granular, agranular, and dysgranular, which house the subpopulations of neurons mentioned above, are divided into 6 main layers. The cytoarchitecture within these layers are the same, but they differ across layers. For example, layer 4 of the granular cortex contain granule cells which are excitatory and distribute thalamocortical inputs to the rest of the cortex. According to one model: <blockquote>

“...prediction neurons... in deep layers of agranular cortex drive active inference by sending sensory predictions via projections ...to supragranular layers of dysgranular and granular sensory cortices. Prediction-error neurons ….in the supragranular layers of granular cortex compute the difference between the predicted and received sensory signal, and send prediction-error signals via projections...back to the deep layers of agranular cortical regions. Precision cells … tune the gain on predictions and prediction error dynamically, thereby giving these signals reduced (or, in some cases, greater) weight depending on the relative confidence in the descending predictions or the reliability of incoming sensory signals.”<ref name="BarretSimmons2015">((cite journal | doi=10.1038/nrn3950 | title=Interoceptive predictions in the brain | year=2015 | last1=Barrett | first1=Lisa Feldman | last2=Simmons | first2=W. Kyle | journal=Nature Reviews Neuroscience | volume=16 | issue=7 | pages=419–429 | pmid=26016744 | pmc=4731102 ))</ref></blockquote>

The theory that the unit of prediction is the [[cortical column]]<ref name="Bennett2020">((cite journal |last1=Bennett |first1=Max |title=An Attempt at a Unified Theory of the Neocortical Microcircuit in Sensory Cortex |journal=Frontiers in Neural Circuits |date=2020 |volume=14 |page=40 |doi=10.3389/fncir.2020.00040 |pmid=32848632 |pmc=7416357 |doi-access=free ))</ref> is based on the remarkable correspondence between the microcircuitry of the cortical column and the connectivity implied by predictive coding.<ref>((cite journal |last1=Bastos |first1=AM |last2=Usrey |first2=WM |last3=Adams |first3=RA |last4=Mangun |first4=GR |last5=Fries |first5=P |last6=Friston |first6=Karl |title=Canonical microcircuits for predictive coding |journal=Neuron |date=2012 |volume=76 |issue=4 |pages=695–711 |doi=10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.038 |pmid=23177956 |pmc=3777738 ))</ref>

==Applying predictive coding==
===Perception===
The empirical evidence for predictive coding is most robust for perceptual processing. As early as 1999, Rao and Ballard proposed a hierarchical [[visual processing]] model in which higher-order visual cortical area sends down predictions and the feedforward connections carry the residual errors between the predictions and the actual lower-level activities.<ref name="rb"/> According to this model, each level in the hierarchical model network (except the lowest level, which represents the image) attempts to predict the responses at the next lower level via feedback connections, and the error signal is used to correct the estimate of the input signal at each level concurrently.<ref name="rb"/> Emberson et al. established the top-down modulation in infants using a cross-modal audiovisual omission paradigm, determining that even infant brains have expectation about future sensory input that is carried downstream from visual cortices and are capable of expectation-based feedback.<ref>((cite journal | doi=10.1073/pnas.1510343112 | title=Top-down modulation in the infant brain: Learning-induced expectations rapidly affect the sensory cortex at 6 months | year=2015 | last1=Emberson | first1=Lauren L. | last2=Richards | first2=John E. | last3=Aslin | first3=Richard N. | journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | volume=112 | issue=31 | pages=9585–9590 | pmid=26195772 | pmc=4534272 | bibcode=2015PNAS..112.9585E | doi-access=free ))</ref> Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) data showed that infant [[occipital cortex]] responded to unexpected visual omission (with no visual information input) but not to expected visual omission. These results establish that in a hierarchically organized perception system, higher-order neurons send down predictions to lower-order neurons, which in turn sends back up the prediction error signal.

===Interoception===
((Main|Interoception))
There have been several competing models for the role of predictive coding in [[interoception]].

In 2013, Anil Seth proposed that our subjective feeling states, otherwise known as emotions, are generated by predictive models that are actively built out of causal interoceptive appraisals.<ref name="as"/> In relation to how we attribute internal states of others to causes, Sasha Ondobaka, James Kilner, and [[Karl Friston]] (2015) proposed that the [[free energy principle]] requires the brain to produce a continuous series of predictions with the goal of reducing the amount of prediction error that manifests as “free energy”.<ref>((cite journal | doi=10.1016/j.bandc.2015.08.002 | title=The role of interoceptive inference in theory of mind | year=2017 | last1=Ondobaka | first1=Sasha | last2=Kilner | first2=James | last3=Friston | first3=Karl | journal=Brain and Cognition | volume=112 | pages=64–68 | pmid=26275633 | pmc=5312780 ))</ref> These errors are then used to model anticipatory information about what the state of the outside world will be and attributions of causes of that world state, including understanding of causes of others’ behavior. This is especially necessary because, to create these attributions, our multimodal sensory systems need interoceptive predictions to organize themselves. Therefore, Ondobaka posits that predictive coding is key to understanding other people's internal states.

In 2015, [[Lisa Feldman Barrett]] and W. Kyle Simmons proposed the Embodied Predictive Interoception Coding model, a framework that unifies Bayesian active inference principles with a physiological framework of corticocortical connections.<ref name="BarretSimmons2015" /> Using this model, they posited that agranular visceromotor cortices are responsible for generating predictions about interoception, thus, defining the experience of interoception.

Contrary to the inductive notion that emotion categories are biologically distinct, Barrett proposed later the theory of constructed emotion, which is the account that a biological emotion category is constructed based on a conceptual category—the accumulation of instances sharing a goal.<ref>((cite journal | doi=10.1093/scan/nsw154 | title=The theory of constructed emotion: An active inference account of interoception and categorization | year=2016 | last1=Barrett | first1=Lisa Feldman | journal=Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience | volume=12 | issue=1 | pages=1–23 | pmid=27798257 | pmc=5390700 ))</ref><ref>Barrett, L.F. (2017). How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ((ISBN|0544133315))</ref> In a predictive coding model, Barrett hypothesizes that, in interoception, our brains regulate our bodies by activating "embodied simulations" (full-bodied representations of sensory experience) to anticipate what our brains predict that the external world will throw at us sensorially and how we will respond to it with action. These simulations are either preserved if, based on our brain's predictions, they prepare us well for what actually subsequently occurs in the external world, or they, and our predictions, are adjusted to compensate for their error in comparison to what actually occurs in the external world and how well-prepared we were for it. Then, in a trial-error-adjust process, our bodies find similarities in goals among certain successful anticipatory simulations and group them together under conceptual categories. Every time a new experience arises, our brains use this past trial-error-adjust history to match the new experience to one of the categories of accumulated corrected simulations that it shares the most similarity with. Then, they apply the corrected simulation of that category to the new experience in the hopes of preparing our bodies for the rest of the experience. If it does not, the prediction, the simulation, and perhaps the boundaries of the conceptual category are revised in the hopes of higher accuracy next time, and the process continues. Barrett hypothesizes that, when prediction error for a certain category of simulations for x-like experiences is minimized, what results is a correction-informed simulation that the body will reenact for every x-like experience, resulting in a correction-informed full-bodied representation of sensory experience—an emotion. In this sense, Barrett proposes that we construct our emotions because the conceptual category framework our brains use to compare new experiences, and to pick the appropriate predictive sensory simulation to activate, is built on the go.

===Challenges===
As a mechanistic theory, predictive coding has not been mapped out physiologically on the neuronal level. One of the biggest challenges to the theory has been the imprecision of exactly how prediction error minimization works.<ref name="kt">((cite journal | doi=10.3389/fncom.2015.00111 | doi-access=free | title=Is predictive coding theory articulated enough to be testable? | year=2015 | last1=Kogo | first1=Naoki | last2=Trengove | first2=Chris | journal=Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience | volume=9 | page=111 | pmid=26441621 | pmc=4561670 ))</ref> In some studies, the increase in [[Blood-oxygen-level dependent imaging|BOLD]] signal has been interpreted as error signal while in others it indicates changes in the input representation.<ref name="kt"/> A crucial question that needs to be addressed is what exactly constitutes error signal and how it is computed at each level of information processing.<ref>((cite journal | doi=10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.038 | title=Canonical Microcircuits for Predictive Coding | year=2012 | last1=Bastos | first1=Andre M. | last2=Usrey | first2=W. Martin | last3=Adams | first3=Rick A. | last4=Mangun | first4=George R. | last5=Fries | first5=Pascal | last6=Friston | first6=Karl J. | journal=Neuron | volume=76 | issue=4 | pages=695–711 | pmid=23177956 | pmc=3777738 ))</ref> Another challenge that has been posed is predictive coding's computational tractability. According to Kwisthout and van Rooij, the subcomputation in each level of the predictive coding framework potentially hides a computationally intractable problem, which amounts to “intractable hurdles” that computational modelers have yet to overcome.<ref>((cite journal | doi=10.1007/s42113-019-00032-3 | title=Computational Resource Demands of a Predictive Bayesian Brain | year=2020 | last1=Kwisthout | first1=Johan | last2=Van Rooij | first2=Iris | journal=Computational Brain & Behavior | volume=3 | issue=2 | pages=174–188 | s2cid=196045530 | hdl=2066/218854 | hdl-access=free ))</ref> Ransom and Fazelpour (2015) indicate "Three Problems for the Predictive Coding Theory of Attention".<ref>Ransom M. & Fazelpour S (2015). Three Problems for the Predictive Coding Theory of Attention. http://mindsonline.philosophyofbrains.com/2015/session4/three-problems-for-the-predictive-coding-theory-of-attention/</ref>

Future research could focus on clarifying the neurophysiological mechanism and computational model of predictive coding.((according to|date=January 2021))

== See also ==
((Div col|colwidth=22em))
*[[Blue Brain Project]]
*[[Cognitive biology]]
*[[Cognitive linguistics]]
*[[Cognitive neuropsychology]]
*[[Cognitive neuroscience]]
*[[Cognitive science]]
*[[Conceptual blending]]
*[[Conceptual metaphor]]
*[[Cortical column]]
*[[Embodied bilingual language]]
*[[Embodied cognitive science]]
*[[Embodied Embedded Cognition]]
*[[Embodied music cognition]]
*[[Enactivism]]
*[[Extended cognition]]
*[[Extended mind thesis]]
*[[Externalism]]
*[[Heuristic]]
*[[Image schema]]
*[[Moravec's paradox]]
*[[Neuroconstructivism]]
*[[Neuropsychology]]
*[[Neurophenomenology]]
*[[Philosophy of mind]]
*[[Plant cognition]]
*[[Practopoiesis]]
*[[Situated cognition]]
*[[Where Mathematics Comes From]]
((div col end))

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Cognitive modeling]]
[[Category:Neuropsychology]]
[[Category:Perception]]

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

Predictive coding (edit)
Template:According to (edit)
Template:According to whom (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ambox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Catalog lookup link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Template:Citation style (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite arXiv (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite journal (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite web (view source) (protected)
Template:Div col (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Div col/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Div col end (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Fix-span (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Fix/category (view source) (protected)
Template:For (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:ISBN (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:Multiple issues (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Multiple issues/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Template:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck (view source) (protected)
Template:Technical (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yesno (view source) (protected)
Template:Yesno-no (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yesno-yes (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Catalog lookup link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Check isxn (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:DecodeEncode (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Disambiguation/templates (view source) (protected)
Module:For (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Format link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote list (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Labelled list hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ambox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/disambiguation (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/setindex (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect (view source) (protected)
Module:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:Wikitext Parsing (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

Return to Predictive coding.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding"