Reflexive attentional orienting in migraineurs: The behavioral implications of hyperexcitable visual cortex
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although migraine is classified as a headache disorder, a key part of migraine pathophysiology is a heightened excitability of visual cortices in between headache events. The goal of our study was to examine the behavioral impact of this visuocortical hyperexcitability, in terms of its effect on reflexive visual attentional orienting. METHODS AND RESULTS: In Experiment 1, using a non-predictive spatial cuing task that relied on sensory-evoked responses in the visual cortex for triggering attentional orienting, we found that migraineurs had greater attentional enhancement of manual target responses, relative to non-migraine controls. In two control experiments we confirmed that this heightened attention effect in migraineurs is not due to exaggerated reflexive orienting responses in general, but rather, it appears to be specifically associated with sensory-evoked attentional triggers. DISCUSSION: Taken together, this confirms that the functional consequences of hyperexcitable visual cortex in migraineurs are not just purely sensory in nature, but directly impact at least some forms of reflexive attention. This provides evidence of at least one cognitive implication of hyperexcitable visual cortical responses in migraineurs, namely heightened reflexive visual-spatial orienting specific to sudden-onset peripheral events.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it