Introduction
Each day, a barrage of sights, sounds, and sensations clamors for our attention. Yet our brains miraculously sift through this flood, tuning out the hum of an air conditioner or the blur of unchanging scenery while zeroing in on a ringing phone or a rustling in the bushes. This selective filtering is no accident. It is the product of millions of years of evolution, which has equipped organisms with cognitive gatekeepers – mechanisms that filter and prioritize information to enhance survival. Two such gatekeepers, sensory gating and latent inhibition, play pivotal roles in how we experience life and cognition. Sensory gating is the neural process of filtering out repetitive or irrelevant stimuli, allowing the brain to focus on what matters most . Latent inhibition, on the other hand, is the phenomenon by which prior exposure to inconsequential stimuli hampers new learning about those stimuli – essentially, the mind’s way of deeming familiar, irrelevant inputs as unimportant . Together, these processes serve as the brain’s editors, curating our perception by dampening background “noise” and highlighting potential signals.
This essay explores how evolution has shaped these filtering mechanisms and, in turn, how these mechanisms influence our understanding of life and cognition. In a narrative that spans from Charles Darwin’s 19th-century insights to cutting-edge neuroscience, we will examine the historical development of evolutionary thought in neuroscience, delve into the neurobiological underpinnings of sensory gating and latent inhibition, and consider the evolutionary trade-offs they entail. We will see how these cognitive filters act as adaptive optimizers – conserving energy, implementing predictive strategies, and fine-tuning behavior – and how their maladaptation can lead to neuropsychiatric disorders. Ultimately, we reflect on how evolution continues to mold our cognitive flexibility, creativity, and interaction with complex environments, positioning sensory gating and latent inhibition as key players in life’s grand adaptive narrative.
Historical Context
The idea that mental processes have evolutionary roots can be traced back to the very dawn of evolutionary theory. Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man (1871), boldly proposed that the difference between the human mind and that of higher animals is “one of degree and not of kind” . This notion – that human cognition lies on a continuum with animal cognition – laid the groundwork for thinking about brain and behavior in evolutionary terms. Darwin’s contemporary, the psychologist William James, was deeply influenced by evolutionary principles; he emphasized that consciousness and attention must have adaptive functions, enabling an organism to survive by selecting the most important information from the environment. Indeed, the revolutionary biological thinking of the late 19th century, spearheaded by Darwin, permeated early neuroscience. The great Spanish neuroanatomist Santiago Ramón y Cajal, often called the father of modern neuroscience, was explicitly inspired by Darwinian ideas and Jamesian psychology. Cajal believed that understanding the brain’s structure and plasticity (its ability to change and learn) required an evolutionary perspective. In his writings, Cajal argued that the neural “wiring” of the brain and its capacity to form new connections were shaped by evolutionary pressures to adapt – an idea foreshadowing today’s concepts of neural plasticity and even “neural Darwinism.”
As the 20th century progressed, the intersection of evolutionary thought and neuroscience grew more concrete. Researchers began to identify specific mechanisms by which the brain might implement Darwin’s mandate of adaptive efficiency. In the early 1900s, Ivan Pavlov’s experiments with dogs hinted at the importance of prior experience in learning – a precursor to the concept of latent inhibition. Pavlov noted that if a sound was repeatedly presented without consequence, dogs would later have trouble associating that sound with a reward, as if the stimulus had been marked “irrelevant.” This observation was formally characterized decades later: in 1959, psychologists Donald Lubow and Norman Moore coined the term latent inhibition to describe the delayed learning about a stimulus previously experienced as inconsequential . The discovery of latent inhibition fit neatly into an evolutionary narrative – it demonstrated the mind’s tendency to inhibit learning about stimuli deemed safe or unimportant, an efficient strategy to avoid wasting energy on “false alarms.”
Concurrently, scientists were uncovering evidence of sensory gating, the brain’s ability to suppress repetitive inputs. By the mid-20th century, electroencephalography (EEG) studies revealed that when a person hears two identical clicks in quick succession, the brain’s response to the second click is dramatically diminished in healthy individuals. This reduced response, known as the P50 sensory gating effect (after an EEG wave occurring ~50 ms post-stimulus), became a quantifiable marker of the brain’s filtering process. Researchers realized that sensory gating prevents overstimulation of higher cortical centers by redundant information . The evolutionary logic was evident: an organism that can tune out the familiar droning of insects or the repetitive crash of distant waves can free its attention for the sudden snap of a twig or the silhouette of a lurking predator. By the late 20th century, evolutionary neuroscience had come into its own as a discipline, integrating concepts from biology and psychology. The Nobel laureate Gerald Edelman even proposed a theory of “Neural Darwinism,” suggesting that neural circuits undergo a selection process – synapses and neuronal groups that are useful are strengthened (“selected for”) while others weaken, paralleling natural selection within the brain’s development . Such ideas underscored a growing consensus: our brains are not static information processors, but dynamic, adaptive organs shaped profoundly by evolutionary pressures to filter, learn, and respond in ways that enhance survival.
Neurobiological Framework
To understand how sensory gating and latent inhibition work as evolutionary tools, we must peek under the hood at their neurobiological mechanisms. Sensory gating is often described as the brain’s filter at the entryway of perception – an innate neurological process that filters out irrelevant or repetitive sensory input before it fully registers in our conscious awareness . Neurophysiologically, one major “gate” resides in the thalamus, the brain’s sensory relay station. A thin sheet of neurons called the thalamic reticular nucleus (TRN) envelops the thalamus and acts like a vigilant bouncer for the cortex . During wakefulness, the TRN’s inhibitory neurons receive signals about incoming sensory data and can selectively dampen the transmission of those signals to the cortex . In effect, the TRN attenuates redundant or irrelevant stimuli – the second click, the monotonous fan noise – thereby “protecting higher cognitive function from interference.” As one recent study explains, through this gating mechanism the TRN “attenuates the transmission of redundant and irrelevant stimuli to the cortex, protecting higher cognitive function from interference” . In animal models, TRN neurons fire robustly at an initial stimulus and much less at a repeated stimulus, corresponding to the animal’s diminished behavioral response to that repetition . This is the cellular dance behind sensory gating: neurons dynamically decreasing their response when a signal is no longer novel. Such gating isn’t inflexible, however. It can be modulated by context and attention – for example, if you actively concentrate on the hum of the air conditioner, you can “bring it back” into focus. In general though, much of sensory gating is a pre-conscious, automatic process, honed by evolution to stop the trivial from drowning out the significant.
Latent inhibition, by contrast, involves learning and memory networks that determine what is worth learning in the first place. When an organism is exposed to a neutral stimulus over and over with no consequence (say, a sound that reliably predicts nothing), the brain gradually tags that stimulus as familiar and harmless. Later, if circumstances change and that same sound is paired with something meaningful (like food or danger), the organism will learn the new association more slowly than if the sound were completely new . In other words, prior benign exposure “latently” inhibits new learning about the stimulus. Neuroscientists have unraveled two main theoretical explanations for this: attentional and memory-competition models. Attentional theories argue that during the repeated exposure phase, the brain simply learns not to pay attention to the stimulus anymore – it loses salience or “novelty value,” so when the stimulus later could signal something important, the animal pays it scant mind, delaying learning . As Lubow (one of the originators of the concept) put it, the organism essentially forms a “CS–no consequence” association (CS meaning conditioned stimulus) during pre-exposure, and it learns not to attend to that stimulus . On the neural level, this attentional downgrading likely involves brain regions such as the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex, which are critical for learning what is new or important. These regions, guided by neurotransmitters like dopamine, help gauge stimulus salience. Notably, dopamine is a key chemical for signaling novelty and importance (imagine it as the brain’s highlighter pen). If dopamine firing is suppressed for a stimulus (because history taught the brain “this is irrelevant”), that stimulus won’t trigger strong learning. The memory-competition theories of latent inhibition add that even if learning does occur, the original memory (“this stimulus predicts nothing”) competes with the new memory (“this stimulus predicts something”) in the brain’s retrieval process . The older memory tends to win out initially, further slowing adaptive response. In either case, latent inhibition reflects a conservative strategy: assume that patterns observed in the past will hold in the future, unless proven otherwise. This conservatism can be life-saving – it prevents constant relearning about stable, harmless aspects of the environment, allowing an animal to focus on truly novel events.
Modern neuroscience has begun to frame these mechanisms in terms of predictive coding and energy efficiency. Predictive coding is a leading theoretical framework that describes the brain as a prediction machine: it constantly generates models of the world and uses incoming sensory data to update or correct those models. Crucially, predictive coding posits that expected inputs (the ones the brain’s model already predicts) are actively filtered out, whereas unexpected inputs (prediction errors) are amplified for further processing . In other words, the brain “continuously inhibits predictable sensory input, ensuring preferential processing of surprising elements” . Sensory gating and latent inhibition fit beautifully into this picture. They are the brain’s way of implementing “don’t fix what ain’t broke” on a perceptual level. If a stimulus has occurred repeatedly with no change (predictable noise) or no consequence (irrelevant cue), the brain down-regulates its response. This strategy is not just about information – it’s also about energy. The human brain, though just 2% of our body weight, gobbles up about 20% of our energy at rest . Processing every tiny detail of every stimulus is metabolically expensive. Thus, energy conservation has been a strong evolutionary driver in shaping neural mechanisms. A recent computational study demonstrated that when artificial neural networks are trained under pressure to minimize energy use, they spontaneously evolve predictive coding-like properties – they learn to “inhibit predictable sensory input,” focusing resources on the novel or informative parts of the data . In essence, evolution has tuned our brains to be stingy with processing power, spending it only where it yields a payoff (new information, potential rewards, or threats). Sensory gating saves us from mental exhaustion by cutting out redundant signals; latent inhibition streamlines learning by ignoring “old news.” These mechanisms form a neurobiological framework optimized for a world where both information and energy are precious currencies.
Evolutionary Trade-Offs
Every evolutionary adaptation comes with trade-offs, and cognitive gatekeeping is no exception. The very filters that protect us can also blind us; the efficiency we gain can exact a cost in missed information. Understanding these trade-offs illuminates why evolution hasn’t simply maximized filtering or, conversely, left us with minds wide open. Instead, different species – and different individuals – strike different balances along the spectrum from perceptual vigilance to perceptual selectivity.
One illustrative example comes from the humble frog. A classic 1959 study, memorably titled “What the Frog’s Eye Tells the Frog’s Brain,” showed that a frog’s visual system contains specialized “bug detector” neurons that respond strongly to small, moving objects while largely ignoring stationary ones . This is a form of hard-wired sensory gating honed by evolution: it gives the frog an excellent ability to snap at a flying insect (the movement signals food) without being distracted by, say, unmoving leaves or background clutter. The trade-off? If an insect sits motionless, the frog might fail to notice it at all. In the frog’s typical environment, this trade-off is worthwhile – prey usually move, and ignoring static scenery saves the frog time and energy. But a change in conditions (imagine an environment where insects are unusually still) could turn the frog’s selective perception into a liability. Similarly, in humans and other animals, filtering mechanisms enhance survival in one context but can pose risks in another. An antelope that habituates (develops latent inhibition) to the routine sounds of the savanna won’t constantly startle at rustling grass – a boon for conserving energy and grazing peacefully. However, if a predator quietly stalks through that grass one day, the antelope’s well-trained indifference could spell disaster. Thus, evolution must balance sensitivity and specificity: being sensitive enough to detect real threats or opportunities, but specific enough to ignore the endless false alarms.
The variability of sensory gating and latent inhibition across individuals suggests that evolution has not settled on a one-size-fits-all setting, perhaps because different niches and strategies can be advantageous. Consider human personality and cognition – some people are naturally more stimulus-seeking and open, while others are more focused and filtering. Those differences reflect, in part, underlying variations in gating and inhibition. There is evidence that these traits run in families and have genetic underpinnings. For example, a subset of the population carries genes (such as certain nicotinic receptor genes) that are associated with weaker sensory gating, a feature which appears more frequently in relatives of schizophrenia patients than in the general population . Why would genes for poorer filtering persist at all? The answer may lie in trade-offs. While strong gating is advantageous for efficiency and concentration, too much gating could make a person overly rigid or insensitive to new information. On the flip side, too little gating – the doors of perception left wide open – can cause overload or distraction, but it might confer an advantage in novelty detection or creativity under the right conditions.
An intriguing line of research has linked creative thought with a reduction in these very filters. Psychologists have observed that eminent creative achievers are seven times more likely to have notably low latent inhibition compared to their less creative peers . In one study, high-IQ individuals who excelled in creative fields showed significantly lower latent inhibition – meaning they remained more receptive to previously irrelevant stimuli – than others . The hypothesis is that by screening out fewer stimuli, creative minds have a richer tapestry of information at their disposal, allowing them to make novel connections (the raw material of innovation) . This aligns with the notion that a bit of looseness in filtering can foster cognitive flexibility and “outside-the-box” thinking. The trade-off, however, is evident: reduced latent inhibition is a double-edged sword. As one researcher put it, a failure to screen out irrelevant stimuli has been linked to psychosis – conditions like schizophrenia where the world can become a cacophony of overwhelming stimuli and associative leaps that others find bizarre . In fact, people with schizophrenia often exhibit marked failures of latent inhibition and sensory gating: they learn associations with previously insignificant stimuli faster than healthy controls (because they don’t discount those stimuli), and they show diminished suppression of repeated sounds, leading to sensory overload . What is a font of creativity in one mind can be a source of delusion in another, depending on the overall balance and the individual’s ability to cope with the influx of information.
Even within the range of normal variation, we see trade-offs. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), for instance, has been associated with atypical sensory gating. Many individuals with ADHD have trouble filtering out distractions – every stimulus, important or not, jostles for attention. Neurophysiological studies have found that deficient sensory gating correlates with the symptoms of inattention in ADHD . The upside of this might be a propensity for spontaneity, rapid shifting of focus (useful in highly dynamic environments), or even creative multitasking. Conversely, individuals who are extremely good at gating out distractions may excel in highly focused tasks but could be less adept at noticing peripheral cues. Tellingly, one study noted that stronger sensory gating correlates with improved impulse control in gifted children – essentially, those who naturally filter stimuli well can more easily resist tempting distractions and stay on task. Evolution seems to hedge its bets by keeping a pool of both “filters” and “non-filters” in the gene pool, each with context-dependent advantages.
From an evolutionary perspective, the optimal level of gating or latent inhibition likely depends on environmental demands. In a stable environment where changes are rare and familiar cues usually predict outcomes, high latent inhibition (ignore the old signals) and tight sensory gating (ignore the constant background) would be favored for efficiency. In contrast, in a rapidly changing or information-rich environment, there may be merit in a more permeable filter – an organism that can detect subtle changes or glean insight from seemingly irrelevant stimuli might adapt more readily. Human evolutionary history has probably seen both scenarios. Our Pleistocene ancestors benefited from keen sensory filtering to focus on hunting or vigilance, but also from the occasional imaginative individual who noticed something others ignored – perhaps the inventor of a new tool or the discoverer of an alternative food source. Evolution, ever the tinkerer, maintains a balance. It doesn’t maximize one trait at the expense of all others; rather, it preserves a diversity of cognitive styles. The result is a species with both specialists in focused attention and generalists with broad attention – a mix that as a whole is resilient and adaptable.
Broader Implications
Stepping back, sensory gating and latent inhibition exemplify a grand theme in the story of life: the continual tuning of organisms to their environments. These mechanisms underscore how evolution shapes not just the body, but the mind, continually negotiating the trade-off between stability and flexibility. They also have far-reaching implications for how we navigate the modern world, how we foster creativity, and how we understand and treat mental disorders.
One important implication is in how we view cognitive flexibility and creativity. In an era that prizes innovation, there is growing interest in whether we can (or should) alter our cognitive filters. If creative achievers naturally have a slightly “leakier” filter – letting in ideas and observations that others might dismiss – could training or environments that relax our latent inhibition boost creative thinking? Some scholars suggest that exposure to diverse, novel experiences can temporarily lower our mental filters, forcing the brain to integrate unrelated information and spurring creative insights. This might be one reason why travel, cross-disciplinary education, or even certain altered states of consciousness are often linked to bursts of creativity – they defamiliarize the familiar, preventing the brain from entirely gating it out. However, the link to mental health is a constant caution: there is a fine line between a mind that is open to inspiration and one that is overwhelmed by irrelevance. Understanding the neurobiology of gating helps illustrate why that line exists. It reminds us that creativity and psychopathology can be two sides of the same coin, separated by the individual’s capacity to manage and make sense of the incoming ideas.
In the realm of neuropsychiatric disorders, evolutionary perspectives on sensory gating and latent inhibition provide both explanations and hope. Conditions like schizophrenia, autism, ADHD, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can all be viewed partly as disorders of filtering. For example, as mentioned, schizophrenia often involves sensory gating deficits – patients report feeling bombarded by sounds and sights, which aligns with measurable P50 gating abnormalities . Their latent inhibition is reduced, meaning they may attach significance to things previously deemed trivial, contributing to delusional associations (e.g., seeing “signs” in innocuous events) . Autism spectrum disorder, too, is frequently accompanied by sensory processing differences. Many autistic individuals experience sensory overload – a hypersensitivity to stimuli – which makes perfect sense in light of atypical sensory gating. Research finds that people on the autism spectrum can exhibit reduced sensory gating of auditory stimuli , which might explain why a sound that a neurotypical person can ignore (like the clatter of a distant cafeteria) could be intensely distracting or distressing to someone with autism . Knowing this directs us toward potential interventions: if we can find ways to gently enhance sensory gating (through therapy, neurofeedback, or pharmacology), we might alleviate some perceptual overload in autism. Conversely, in disorders where filters are too heavy – for instance, certain cases of clinical depression involve an almost tunnel-vision-like focus on negative thoughts, potentially an over-filtering of positive stimuli – we might seek to loosen the gating to allow more cognitive flexibility.
Evolutionary thinking also encourages us to ask: why do these “disorders” exist at all? The persistence of genes that predispose to schizophrenia or autism, despite their challenges, hints that there may have been (or still are) contexts in which those traits carried benefits. A hypothetical example is the “shamanistic” theory of schizophrenia: in ancestral societies, a person with a naturally porous filter (prone to visions or novel ideas) might have been valued as a shaman or spiritual guide. Similarly, the intense focus and detail-orientation seen in some autistic individuals can be an asset in certain tasks (even today in fields like coding or data analysis). Evolution might not “weed out” these traits entirely because they come bundled with cognitive styles that can prove advantageous under some conditions. In short, neurodiversity might be evolution’s way of ensuring our species has many cognitive tools in the toolbox. The broader implication for society is a call for appreciating different minds – recognizing that traits like high or low gating are part of a natural spectrum of adaptation, each with its own strengths.
In our complex modern environments, the filtering systems that evolved on the savannas and forests are being stress-tested like never before. We live in an age of information overload – a constant stream of emails, notifications, ads, and media. One could argue that our sensory gating and latent inhibition are both a blessing and a curse in this setting. They are a blessing because without them, we’d be paralyzed by the sheer volume of inputs (imagine consciously processing every car noise, every line of text on a webpage at once). But they can also be a curse if our ancient filters let in distractions that tech companies have learned to weaponize (flashing icons, dopamine-triggering alerts) while gating out subtle but important signals (like our own internal need for rest). Understanding these mechanisms can guide us in designing better human-computer interfaces and healthier digital habits – essentially hacking our evolutionary wiring for our own benefit. For instance, knowing that our brains habituate quickly to consistent stimuli, we might avoid constant background television when focus is needed, or use consistent white noise to drown out sporadic disturbances. At the same time, knowing that novelty demands our attention (thanks to latent inhibition circuits honed to notice change), we should be mindful of how often we seek novelty for novelty’s sake (endless scrolling of novel content can hijack our attention system).
Ultimately, sensory gating and latent inhibition highlight the adaptive ingenuity of life. They show us that what we don’t perceive or learn can be just as important as what we do. Evolution has written this lesson into our neurons: sometimes, ignoring the buzz is the key to survival; other times, breaking the pattern and noticing the out-of-place is the key to innovation. These mechanisms encourage a profound humility about our perception – much of reality is filtered or constructed by the brain – while also affirming a deep connection between mind and environment. Our very capacity to think, create, and stay sane has been shaped by eons of trial and error, a testament to the fact that cognition itself is an adaptation, a constantly evolving solution to the problems of life.
Conclusion
From the quieting of redundant echoes in the thalamus to the slowing of learning for familiar signals, sensory gating and latent inhibition emerge as unsung heroes in the evolutionary saga of the mind. They are the cognitive gatekeepers that have enabled organisms to thrive in worlds teeming with far more information than could ever be processed at once. In examining their roles, we traversed a narrative linking the past to present: starting with Darwin’s 19th-century realization of continuity between animal and human minds , through the early neuroscientific insights of pioneers like Cajal, to contemporary frameworks like predictive coding that mathematically formalize why filtering is optimal for an energy-constrained brain . History shows an increasing appreciation for how evolution has engineered our perceptions – not to be cameras reflecting reality in full, but smart editors that craft a useful, survival-oriented storyline from the chaos.
These mechanisms teach us that perception is selective and that this selectivity has been deeply advantageous. By gating sensory inputs, we avoid paralysis by analysis; by inhibiting latent stimuli, we stick to reliable associations and aren’t constantly “re-learning” the world from scratch. Yet, as we have seen, there is no free lunch in evolution. The very filters that keep us sane can, when dysregulated, contribute to insanity. The fine-tuned balance can tilt, giving rise to the pain of mental illness or the spark of creative genius, or sometimes both. Recognizing sensory gating and latent inhibition as evolutionary strategies helps destigmatize these variations – we can begin to see, for instance, the hallucinations of schizophrenia not merely as “errors” of a broken brain, but as the extreme outcome of a brain’s attempt to impose meaning and salience on everything in the absence of normal filters. Likewise, the child who daydreams and distracts easily might be understood as having an attention system geared toward exploration over exploitation.
In a broader sense, evolution continues to shape our minds, albeit on a different canvas. Cultural and technological evolution now proceed at lightning pace, challenging our ancient neural mechanisms. But those mechanisms – sensory gating and latent inhibition – remain highly relevant. They will influence how we adapt to new environments of our own making. For example, as virtual and augmented realities emerge, our brains will still rely on gating to distinguish what to attend to; designers of those technologies may even leverage our latent inhibition (present stimuli long enough to make them “invisible” to users). In the ever-complexifying environment of the future, cognitive flexibility and creativity will be at a premium, and evolution’s lesson is that a moderate loosening of filters can sometimes provide that edge. We may even guide our own cognitive evolution by learning when to consciously open the gates – for insight, empathy, or learning – and when to close them to guard our focus and well-being.
In closing, the story of sensory gating and latent inhibition is, at its heart, a story of adaptation and balance. It reminds us that life has survived not by perceiving everything, but by perceiving what mattered; not by learning anew each moment, but by leveraging past experience to predict the future – and knowing when to override those expectations. Our understanding of these processes, enriched by historical insights and modern research, reinforces a profound truth: to live and thrive is not merely to sense or to think, but to intelligently filter. The evolution of life and cognition has been a journey of refining those filters, and through them, nature has written a masterclass in efficiency, resilience, and creativity. As we marvel at our ability to find meaning in a noisy universe, we owe a silent thanks to these cognitive gatekeepers – the sentinels at the gates of awareness – forged by evolution to guard the boundary between chaos and order, and in doing so, to let wisdom and survival prevail.
Sources:
1. Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. (Mental continuity between humans and animals)
2. Ferreira, F.R.M., et al. (2014). The influence of James and Darwin on Cajal and his research into the neuron theory and evolution of the nervous system. Front. Neuroanat. (Interplay of evolutionary theory and early neuroscience)
3. Trevisan, D.A. et al. (Yale University). EEG indices of sensory gating in ASD. (Definition of sensory gating; reduced gating in autism)
4. Miller, D.B. et al. (2022). Behavioral and neural mechanisms of latent inhibition. Learn. Mem. (Definition and theories of latent inhibition)
5. Ali, A. et al. (2022). Predictive coding as a consequence of energy efficiency in RNNs. Patterns 3(12):100639. (Brain inhibits predictable input to focus on surprises; energy efficiency drives gating)
6. Chinappen, D., et al. (2021). Direct recording of auditory sensory gating in human thalamus. (Thalamic reticular nucleus gates sensory input; gating failure links to inattention)
7. Lettvin, J.Y. et al. (1959). What the Frog’s Eye Tells the Frog’s Brain. Proc. IRE. (Frog visual “bug detectors” as evolutionary sensory filter)
8. Carson, S.H. et al. (2003). Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-functioning individuals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. (Low latent inhibition linked to creativity in high-IQ people)
9. Gill, K.E. et al. (2021). The prediction-error hypothesis of schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology. (Schizophrenia shows failure of latent inhibition; dopamine and salience dysregulation)
10. Hall, M.-H. et al. (2008). Genetic influence on P50 sensory gating. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. (P50 gating deficits in schizophrenia patients and relatives; genetic link to nicotinic receptors)