Brain signatures of surprise in EEG and MEG data
Abstract
The brain is constantly anticipating the future of sensory inputs based on past experiences. When new sensory data is different from predictions shaped by recent trends, neural signals are generated to report this surprise. Existing models for quantifying surprise are based on an ideal observer assumption operating under one of the three definitions of surprise set forth as the Shannon, Bayesian, and Confidence-corrected surprise. In this paper, we analyze both visual and auditory EEG and auditory MEG signals recorded during oddball tasks to examine which temporal components in these signals are sufficient to decode the brains surprise based on each of these three definitions. We found that for both recording systems the Shannon surprise is always significantly better decoded than the Bayesian surprise regardless of the sensory modality and the selected temporal features used for decoding. Author summaryA regression model is proposed for decoding the level of the brains surprise in response to sensory sequences using selected temporal components of recorded EEG and MEG data. Three surprise quantification definitions (Shannon, Bayesian, and Confidence-corrected surprise) are compared in offering decoding power. Four different regimes for selecting temporal samples of EEG and MEG data are used to evaluate which part of the recorded data may contain signatures that represent the brains surprise in terms of offering a high decoding power. We found that both the middle and late components of the EEG response offer strong decoding power for surprise while the early components are significantly weaker in decoding surprise. In the MEG response, we found that the middle components have the highest decoding power while the late components offer moderate decoding powers. When using a single temporal sample for decoding surprise, samples of the middle segment possess the highest decoding power. Shannon surprise is always better decoded than the other definitions of surprise for all the four temporal feature selection regimes. Similar superiority for Shannon surprise is observed for the EEG and MEG data across the entire range of temporal sample regimes used in our analysis.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 12
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Frontal cortex tracks surprise separately for different sensory modalities but engages a common inhibitory control mechanism
Jan R. Wessel, David E. Huber·PLoS Computational BiologyPeer-reviewed·Jul 29, 2019
- Surprise About Sensory Event Timing Drives Cortical Transients in the Beta Frequency Band
Thomas Meindertsma, Niels A Kloosterman, … Tobias H. Donner·Journal of NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Jul 20, 2018
- Surprise: a unified theory and experimental predictions
Alireza Modirshanechi, Johanni Brea, Wulfram Gerstner·Journal of Mathematical PsychologyPeer-reviewed·Sep 1, 2022
- The Latency of a Domain-General Visual Surprise Signal is Attribute Dependent
Benjamin G. Lowe, Naohide Yamamoto, … Patrick Johnston·CortexPeer-reviewed·Nov 26, 2025
- EEG decoding reveals neural predictions for naturalistic material behaviors
DANIEL H. KAISER, Rico Stecher, Katja Doerschner·Journal of NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Jun 27, 2023
- Time-resolved decoding of uncertainty about stimulus features from human EEG
Jeffrey Nestor, Karen J. Tian, … Rachel N. Denison·bioRxiv·Sep 14, 2026