No Brain Signature of Prediction Error to Unattended Visual Stimuli Despite Early Brain Encoding of the Stimuli

Prediction error is a basic component of predictive-coding theory of brain processing. According to the theory, each stage of brain processing of sensory information generates a model of the current sensory input; subsequent input is compared against the model and only if there is a mismatch, a prediction error, is further processing performed. Recently, Smout et al. [[1][1]] found that a signature of prediction error, the visual (v) mismatch negativity (MMN), for a fundamental property of visual input—its orientation—was absent without attention on the stimuli. This is remarkable because the weight of evidence for MMNs from audition and vision is that they occur without attention. To resolve this discrepancy, we conducted an experiment addressing two alternative explanations for Smout et al.’s finding: that it was from a lack of reproducibility or that participants’ visual systems did not encode the stimuli when attention was on something else. We conducted a similar experiment to Smout et al.’s. We showed 21 participants sequences of identically oriented Gabor patches, standards, and, unpredictably, otherwise identical, Gabor patches differing in orientation by ±15°, ±30°, and ±60°, deviants. To test whether participants encoded the orientation of the standards, we varied the numbers of standards preceding a deviant, allowing us to search for a decrease in activity with the number of repetitions of standards—repetition suppression. We diverted participants’ attention from the oriented stimuli with a central, letter-detection task. We reproduced Smout et al.’s finding of no vMMN without attention, strengthening their finding. We also found that our participants showed repetition suppression: they did encode the stimuli pre-attentively. We also found early processing of deviants. We discuss whether this earlier processing of deviants may be why no further processing, in the vMMN time window, occurs. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. [1]: #ref-1