Correlation between the effects of attention and response normalization in prefrontal area 8A neurons is cell type dependent.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many visual neurons lower their response rates to a stimulus in the receptive field when other stimuli are added inside or outside their receptive field. This phenomenon has been proposed to be the result of a canonical normalization mechanism that acts across multiple brain areas and has been reported to correlate with visual attentional response modulation in extrastriate visual neurons. We recorded neural activity in prefrontal area 8A, an area associated with selective visual attention, of two macaca fascicularis using chronically implanted multielectrode arrays during two task conditions. In one condition, the animals were presented with four identical grating stimuli, each positioned in one quadrant of the visual field while fixating on a central dot. In the second condition, one grating was initially presented followed by the onset of the remaining three stimuli. The position of the first grating (the target) varied between trials. Animals had to make a saccade to the target when that grating changed orientation. The majority of our visually-tuned single units showed a lower response when four stimuli were presented relative to the sum of individual responses to each single stimulus (mean normalization index = 0.72). These units also showed a strong attentional modulation (mean attentional index = 0.41). Importantly, units with stronger normalization showed the strongest attentional modulation (r=0.19; p< 0.05). We further classified attention-tuned units depending on the hemifield which showed the strongest visual response relative to the recording site. Ipsilateral neurons showed negative correlations between normalization and attention when the animals switched attention whereas contralateral neurons showed positive correlations. Finally, spike-count correlations were higher between ipsilateral than between contralateral neurons. These results demonstrate that in PFC circuitry, normalization and attention are linked, and that neurons here may perform different computations during attention allocation depending on their spatial tuning. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2015
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".