MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2003· article· en· W2035844083 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Hélène Grosbras, Tomáš Paus

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations172
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207