Writing Increases Precision-Weighted Inference of Conceptual Organization: A Bayesian-Brain Active-Inference Model of the Writing-over-Speaking Advantage in Analytic Thinking.

Overview

1. Department of Francophone Studies and Languages, Faculty of Arts, Brandon University, 270—18th Street, Brandon, MB R7A 6A9, Canada
2. St. Stephen’s College, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2J6, Canada
3. Department of Psychology, School of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, Universidad del Norte, Km. 5 vía Puerto Colombia, Barranquilla 081007, Colombia
4. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Science, Brandon University, 270—18th Street, Brandon, MB R7A 6A9, Canada

Abstract

Highlights: What are the main findings? Under laboratory-controlled conditions, university students produced written responses with higher NLP-derived analytic thinking scores than spoken responses. Relative to speaking cues, writing cues increased the active-inference agent’s probability of occupying an active state corresponding to high-analytic-thinking discourse production.

What are the implications of the main findings? Computational phenotypes estimated from writing samples could support future research on language-production markers of psychological disorders. Active-inference models of analytic thinking could be extended and validated in populations of individuals with psychological disorders under laboratory-controlled conditions.

Abstract: Background: The analytic thinking score (ATS) has been interpreted as a linguistic marker of organized thought. Written language typically shows a higher ATS than spoken language. From the perspective of active inference under the free-energy principle, we proposed a preliminary neurocomputational model of this writing-over-speaking advantage. We propose that ATS is an externally computed linguistic measure reflecting analytic-thinking active states that arise from precision-weighted inference over internal conceptual-organization (CO) states. We hypothesize that written production shows a higher ATS when the active-inference agent increases posterior confidence in high-CO states. Methods: ATSs were extracted from written and spoken samples produced by university students who described thematic apperception test images. Participants were modeled as active-inference agents using a two-timestep Markov decision process (MDP) in which speaking and writing sensory cues updated beliefs about internal CO states which then drove analytic thinking active states. Belief updating was formalized through marginal message-passing and theoretically interpreted in terms of prediction-error signaling and precision-weighted neuronal synaptic gain. An attention-related parameter (AP) controlled the precision of the CO-sensory state mapping. Bayesian model selection was used to assess the model’s preliminary construct validity. Results: Written responses showed higher ATSs than spoken responses. The AP estimate indicated that writing cues supported posterior inference toward high-CO states stronger than speaking cues. Bayesian model selection favored the active-inference MDP over a Variational Laplace linear model. Conclusions: The current preliminary evidence speaks to a candidate active-inference model in which writing ascribes higher precision-weighted inference of CO, reflected in higher ATSs.

Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY), from the paper cited above.

Code

No file of the authors' code could be read here: it is described below, and read at its source.

The paper's code and data availability statement is in the Data section.

Tracing map

Proposed by the machine: these links were found in the paper and verified at the source, without human review. The map will receive a Zenodo DOI once one of the paper's authors has validated it with their ORCID.

What the map holds:

• 1 repository of the authors' code, each at its verified commit, with its license and how the link was found in the paper;
• 0 scripts, each with its path and the digest of its content;
• no match between paragraphs and code yet;
• neither the text of the paper nor the code itself.

Its JSON (tracing-map.json) is deposited on Zenodo with its DOI once the map is validated.

Data

No dataset and no data link were found in the paper.

Data Availability Statement

Modeling scripts and raw data files can be downloaded from the Writing-brain laboratory website https://people.brandonu.ca/limongir/home/the-writing-brain-laboratory/.

Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY), from the paper cited above.

Versions

The history of this record: each version stored by the harvester or made by a correction of its authors or of the maintainers of its code, and what changed in its facts. The texts of the paper (its abstract, its availability statements) are not part of it; versions that changed only those are not listed.

Version 1, 27 September 2026: the first record

Recorded: type, language, journal, volume, issue, pages, dates, 4 authors, 4 keywords, 1 funder, 52 references.

Cite

This paper

Silva, A. M., Truelove, R. M., Millán De Lange, A., & Limongi, R. (2026). Writing Increases Precision-Weighted Inference of Conceptual Organization: A Bayesian-Brain Active-Inference Model of the Writing-over-Speaking Advantage in Analytic Thinking. Brain sciences, 16(8), 771. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci16080771

The tracing map gets a citation of its own once an author has validated it and it has a DOI.

Similar papers

The papers with a page that share the most with this one: the tools found in their code, their categories, datasets, cited references and authors, the rarest counting most.

[1] doi:10.1007/s12021-025-09759-w [code]

Limitations of Variational Laplace-Based Dynamic Causal Modelling for Multistable Cortical Circuits.

Journal: Neuroinformatics

In common: 4 references

[2] doi:10.1162/imag.a.1234 [code]

Multiscale parcellation of dynamic causal models of the brain.

Journal: Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)

In common: 4 references

[3] doi:10.1038/s41593-026-02345-6 [code]

Human hippocampal ripples tune cortical responses based on predicted uncertainty.

Journal: Nature neuroscience

In common: cognitive, 3 references

[4] doi:10.1038/s44220-026-00669-7 [code]

Deviations in effective connectivity explain different hallucination subtypes in Parkinson's disease psychosis.

Journal: Nature. Mental health

In common: 3 references

[5] doi:10.1162/imag.a.1250 [code]

Dynamics-informed priors (DIP) for neural mass modelling.

Journal: Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)

In common: 3 references

[6] doi:10.1002/hbm.70518

Voluntary Attention Selectively Modulates Omission Responses.

Journal: Human brain mapping

In common: cognitive, 2 references

[7] doi:10.7717/peerj.21593

Investigation of brain connectivity alteration in the non-severe traumatic brain injury: an emotional condition study.

Journal: PeerJ

In common: cognitive, 2 references

[8] doi:10.7554/elife.90013 [code]

Exposure to false cardiac feedback alters pain perception and anticipatory cardiac frequency.

Journal: eLife

In common: cognitive, 2 references

[9] doi:10.1162/netn.a.544 [code]

Brain network reconfiguration during reward prediction error processing.

Journal: Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)

In common: cognitive, 2 references

[10] doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014340 [code]

pyhgf: A neural network library for predictive coding.

Journal: PLoS computational biology

In common: 2 references

Contribute

The authors of this paper can claim it, correct its record and validate its tracing map, and the maintainers of its code (its owner, or a public member of its organization) correct what it says of their repository; anyone signed in can ask for its removal. Every request goes to OSCR's own machine, which answers it; your account page follows them.

Request its removal

To ask OSCR to remove this record, the copies of its authors' scripts or its tracing map, use the removal request page: signed in, you say who you are, what to remove and why, then review and confirm the request. Published rules decide every request (how).

Discussion: questions and error reports about this paper and its code, from signed-in readers and its authors. It opens with sign-in.

Reproductions: reports from readers who ran the authors' code: what they reproduced, with which environment, commit and data. It opens with sign-in.

Activity: what happens around this paper: new versions of its record, its map's validation, discussions and reproductions. It opens with sign-in.