The prosthetics of vigilant attention: Random cuing cuts processing demands.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Engagement in tasks requiring vigilant attention is susceptible to modulation by exogenous stimulation, reflected in changes in performance accuracy and speed. The shift from endogenous to exogenous control may be observed not only when the external cue is meaningful to the task, but also when it holds no information about the task or performance. The purpose of this study was to examine how the shift to exogenous engagement is reflected in changes to the well-documented, right-lateralized, frontal-parietal-thalamic vigilant attention network. METHOD: Using functional magnetic resonance imaging , healthy participants were scanned as they performed the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) in 60-s blocks, some of which were presented with brief, random, auditory tones. The SART requires participants to overcome the tendency to respond in an automatic, task-driven manner in response to infrequent no-go stimuli. RESULTS: Despite no overall effect on performance, and only a transient increase in response times immediately following the tones, the SART with alerting tones was associated with a diminished pattern of activation in key nodes of the network. The pattern of right-lateralized activity observed with the SART was attenuated with the tones, and activity in the right middle frontal gyrus was significantly diminished, as revealed by region-of-interest analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Alerting tones provided the stimulation to cue the maintenance of the goal-state, reducing reliance on prefrontal control mechanisms and demonstrating the shift from endogenous top-down control to exogenous control. These findings suggest a neural mechanism for the facilitatory effects of exogenous engagement for patients with damaged top-down attentional brain systems.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".