MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human frontal eye field facilitates visual awareness

2003· article· en· W2035844083 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersFrancis Crick Institute
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationStimulus (psychology)PsychologyNeuroscienceVisual searchEye movementPhotic StimulationSubliminal stimuliCognitive psychologyAudiologyVisual perceptionStimulationPerceptionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What are the brain mechanisms allowing a stimulus to enter our awareness? Some theories suggest that this process engages resources overlapping with those required for action control, but experimental support for these ideas is still required. Here, we investigated whether the human frontal eye field (FEF), an area known to control eye movements, is involved in visual awareness. Volunteers participated in a backward masking task in which they were able to detect a target in a small proportion of trials. We observed that a single pulse of transcranial magnetic stimulation applied over the FEF shortly before the target's onset facilitated visual sensitivity; subjects were able to detect an otherwise subliminal object. These results show that modulating the neuronal activity of the FEF can enhance visual detection, thereby yielding new insights into the neural basis of visual awareness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it