Expectation mismatch: differences between self-generated and cue-induced expectations
- PMID: 24971824
- DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.06.009
Expectation mismatch: differences between self-generated and cue-induced expectations
Abstract
Expectation of upcoming stimuli and tasks can lead to improved performance, if the anticipated situation occurs, while expectation mismatch can lead to less efficient processing. Researchers have used methodological approaches that rely on either self-generated expectations (predictions) or cue-induced expectations to investigate expectation mismatch effects. Differentiating these two types of expectations for different contents of expectation such as stimuli, responses, task sets and conflict level, we review evidence suggesting that self-generated expectations lead to larger facilitating effects and conflict effects on the behavioral and neural level - as compared to cue-based expectations. On a methodological level, we suggest that self-generated as compared to cue-induced expectations allow for a higher amount of experimental control in many experimental designs on expectation effects. On a theoretical level, we argue for qualitative differences in how cues vs. self-generated expectations influence performance. While self-generated expectations might generally involve representing the expected event in the focus of attention in working memory, cues might only lead to such representations under supportive circumstances (i.e., cue of high validity and attended).
Keywords: Action control; Anticipation; Cue-induced expectations; Self-generated expectations.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Neural correlates of cue-unique outcome expectations under differential outcomes training: an fMRI study.Brain Res. 2009 Apr 10;1265:111-27. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.12.072. Epub 2009 Jan 15. Brain Res. 2009. PMID: 19401182
-
Expectations induced by natural-like temporal fluctuations are independent of attention decrement: evidence from behavior and early visual evoked potentials.Neuroimage. 2015 Jan 1;104:278-86. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.09.015. Epub 2014 Sep 16. Neuroimage. 2015. PMID: 25224996
-
The benefit of expecting no conflict--Stronger influence of self-generated than cue-induced conflict expectations on Stroop performance.Acta Psychol (Amst). 2016 Jan;163:135-41. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.11.008. Epub 2015 Nov 30. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2016. PMID: 26649453
-
Expectation (and attention) in visual cognition.Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Sep;13(9):403-9. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.003. Epub 2009 Aug 27. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009. PMID: 19716752 Review.
-
The Intricate Interplay of Spatial Attention and Expectation: a Multisensory Perspective.Multisens Res. 2020 Mar 17;33(4-5):383-416. doi: 10.1163/22134808-20201482. Multisens Res. 2020. PMID: 31940592 Review.
Cited by
-
Why Prediction Matters in Multitasking and How Predictability Can Improve It.Front Psychol. 2017 Nov 22;8:2021. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02021. eCollection 2017. Front Psychol. 2017. PMID: 29213250 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Can Psychological Expectation Models Be Adapted for Placebo Research?Front Psychol. 2016 Nov 28;7:1876. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01876. eCollection 2016. Front Psychol. 2016. PMID: 27965612 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Self-Generated or Cue-Induced-Different Kinds of Expectations to Be Considered.Front Psychol. 2017 Jan 24;8:53. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00053. eCollection 2017. Front Psychol. 2017. PMID: 28174554 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Action-outcome delays modulate the temporal expansion of intended outcomes.Sci Rep. 2024 Jan 29;14(1):2379. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-52287-x. Sci Rep. 2024. PMID: 38287123 Free PMC article.
-
Tied to expectations: Predicting features speeds processing even under adverse circumstances.Mem Cognit. 2017 May;45(4):611-624. doi: 10.3758/s13421-016-0683-y. Mem Cognit. 2017. PMID: 28000115
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources