Effects of Anterior Cingulate Microstimulation on Pro- and Antisaccades in Nonhuman Primates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies have established a role for the ACC in cognitive control. Current theories are at odds as to whether ACC itself directly engages or alternatively recruits other frontal cortical areas that implement control. The antisaccade task, in which subjects are required to make a saccade to the location opposite a suddenly appearing visual stimulus, is a simple oculomotor paradigm that has been used extensively to investigate flexible oculomotor control. Here, we tested a causal role of the dorsal ACC in cognitive control by applying electrical microstimulation during a preparatory period while monkeys performed alternating blocks of pro- and antisaccade trials. Microstimulation induced significant changes in saccadic RTs (SRTs) in both tasks. On prosaccade trials, SRTs were increased for saccades contralateral to and decreased for saccades ipsilateral to the stimulated hemisphere. In contrast, SRTs were decreased for both ipsi- and contralaterally directed antisaccades. These data show that microstimulation administered during response preparation facilitated the performance of antisaccades and are suggestive of a direct role of ACC in the implementation of cognitive control.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".