MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Attentional Modulation of Neuromagnetic Evoked Responses in Early Human Visual Cortex and Parietal Lobe following a Rank-Order Rule

2011· article· en· W2051282705 on OpenAlexafffund
Therese Lennert, Roberto Cipriani, Pierre Jolicœur, Douglas Cheyne, Julio Martínez-Trujillo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversité de MontréalHospital for Sick ChildrenMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeuroscienceParietal lobePsychologyPosterior parietal cortexCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Top-down voluntary attention modulates the amplitude of magnetic evoked fields in the human visual cortex. Whether such modulation is flexible enough to adapt to the demands of complex tasks in which abstract rules must be applied to select a target in the presence of distracters remains unclear. We recorded brain neuromagnetic activity using whole-head magnetoencephalography in 14 human subjects during a rule-guided target selection task, and applied event-related Synthetic Aperture Magnetometry to image instantaneous changes in neuromagnetic source activity throughout the brain. During the task subjects selected one of two stimuli (the target) and ignored the other (the distracter) based on a color-rank rule (color 1 > color 2 > color 3). Our results revealed that in early visual color-sensitive areas and the parietal cortex visual stimuli evoke activity that scaled following the rank-order rule. This effect was stronger and occurred later in the parietal lobe (~200 ms after target/distracter onset) relative to early visual areas (~180 ms). Moreover, we found that transient changes in the target's motion direction evoked stronger responses relative to similar changes in the distracter at ~180 ms from change onset in contralateral areas hMT+/V5. These results suggest that during target selection and allocation of attention to a stimulus, top-down signals adjust their intensity following complex selection rules according to the organism's priorities, thereby differentially modulating neuromagnetic activity across visual cortical areas.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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