733, P = 0.475. The response to less probable deviant repetitions (mean = −1.548 μV, SE = 0.333 μV) was similar to the first deviant tone response (mean = −1.885 μV, SE = 0.363 μV). Within anisochronous sequences, the repetition × repetition

probability interaction was not significant: F1,14 = 0.487, P = 0.497. The response to highly probable deviant repetitions (mean = −1.418 μV, SE = 0.430 μV) was similar to the first deviant tone response (mean = −1.896 μV, SE = 0.344 μV). Likewise, the response to less probable deviant repetitions (mean = −1.593 μV, SE = 0.250 μV) was similar to the first deviant tone response (mean = −2.294 μV, SE = 0.348 μV). The pattern of significant findings suggests that temporal information is required for the computation of higher-order predictions in audition based on deviant repetition probability (see Fig. 2). The four-way interaction of repetition, Epigenetic inhibitor repetition probability, laterality and side was not significant within either temporal regularity level (see the main experiment section of Table 2). However, within isochronous sequences a significant repetition × repetition probability × laterality

interaction was found: F1,14 = 4.605, P = 0.05, partial η2 = 0.248. Follow-up tests were conducted separately for central and lateral electrode positions. A significant repetition × repetition probability interaction emerged for centrally located electrodes: F1,14 = 5.071, P = 0.041, partial η2 = 0.266. A significant hypoxia-inducible factor cancer difference between first deviant tones and highly Sucrase probable deviant repetitions was shown using t-tests: t14 = −2.692, P = 0.018. Here too, the response to highly probable deviant repetitions (mean = −0.912 μV, SE = 0.362 μV) was largely attenuated compared with the first deviant tone response (mean = −1.878 μV, SE = 0.504 μV). And again, no difference was found between first deviant tones and less probable deviant repetitions: t14 = −0.893, P = 0.387. As for lateral electrodes, the repetition × repetition probability interaction was not significant: F1,14 = 2.274, P = 0.154. The error response attenuation

effect reflecting higher-order predictions is thus localized at frontocentral electrode locations, irrespective of side. Additionally, the omnibus anova yielded a significant repetition probability × side interaction: F1,14 = 4.614, P = 0.05, partial η2 = 0.248. However, follow-up t-tests failed to reach statistical significance (all P ≥ 0.12). Within anisochronous sequences, we further observed a significant repetition × laterality × side interaction: F1,14 = 6.355, P < 0.024, partial η2 = 0.312. Follow-up tests were conducted separately for central and lateral electrode positions. A main effect of repetition was found at central electrode locations: F1,14 = 4.620, P < 0.050, partial η2 = 0.248. First deviant tones (mean = −1.847 μV, SE = 0.274 μV) yielded a larger response than deviant tone repetitions (mean = −1.