Attention and Sensory Gain Control: A Peripheral Visual Process?
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
Attention-related sensory gain control in human extrastriate cortex is believed to improve the acuity of visual perception. Yet given wide variance in the spatial resolution of vision across the retina, it remains unclear whether sensory gain operates homogenously between foveal and nonfoveal retinotopic locations. To address this issue, we used event-related potentials (ERPs) in a variant of the canonical spatial attention task. Participants were cued to expect targets at either fixation (foveal targets) or at a location several degrees above fixation (parafoveal targets). At both target locations, manual reaction times were shorter for cued relative to uncued targets, indicating that attention was consistently oriented to the cued location. Nevertheless, attention-related increases in sensory-evoked cortical activity were only observed at the parafoveal target location, as measured by the amplitude of the lateral occipital P1 ERP component. A second experiment replicated this data pattern using targets with lower stimulus contrast, indicating that the absence of a P1 effect for foveal targets could not be attributed to a saturated P1 response under higher-contrast stimulus conditions. When considered in light of retinogeniculate projections to cortex showing systematic changes in their physiological organization beginning within a degree of visual angle of the fovea, our findings support the proposal that the strategic functions of visual attention may vary with the retinotopic location involved.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it