Isolating a cerebellar contribution to rapid visual attention using transcranial magnetic stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient and neuroimaging research have provided increasing support for a role of the posterior-lateral cerebellum in cognition, particularly attention. During rapid serial visual presentation, when two targets are presented in close temporal proximity (<500 ms), accuracy at detecting the second target (T2) suffers. This phenomenon is known as the attentional blink (AB), and in cerebellar lesion patients this effect is exaggerated. Damage to the cerebellum may thus disrupt the use of attentional resources during stimulus processing conditions that are temporally demanding. There are reciprocal connections between the cerebral cortex and the contralateral cerebellum, these connections allow for the possibility that lateralized functions in the cerebral cortex (such as language) remain lateralized in the cerebellum. The purpose of this study was to investigate the temporal characteristics of the cerebellar contribution to the AB and to functionally localize the contribution of the cerebellum to the AB using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). We hypothesized that T2 accuracy would decrease after right cerebellar stimulation when the delay between the first target (T1) and T2 was short (120-400 ms) compared to long (720-960 ms). We used continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS), a form of TMS, to transiently inhibit a focal population of neurons in the left and right posterior-lateral cerebellum of healthy participants (n = 45). Three groups of participants (n = 15) performed the AB before and after either sham, left, or right cerebellar stimulation. The results of this cTBS study support our hypothesis. During the short delay, participants in the right cTBS group showed a greater AB magnitude compared to both the left and sham cTBS groups (p < 0.05). No difference in T2 detection was found over long delays. The results provide further support for a cerebellar contribution to an integrated neural network recruited during temporally demanding attention-based tasks.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".