Prefrontal Neurons of Opposite Spatial Preference Display Distinct Target Selection Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurons in the primate dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) of one hemisphere are selective for the location of attended targets in both visual hemifields. Whether dlPFC neurons with selectivity for opposite hemifields directly compete with each other for target selection or instead play distinct roles during the allocation of attention remains unclear. We explored this issue by recording neuronal responses in the right dlPFC of two macaques while they allocated attention to a target in one hemifield and ignored a distracter on the opposite side. Forty-nine percent of the recorded neurons were target location selective. Neurons selective for contralateral targets (58%) systematically discriminated targets from distracters faster than neurons selective for ipsilateral targets (42%). Additionally, during trials in which sensory stimulation remained the same but both stimuli were task irrelevant and animals were required to detect a change in the color of a fixation spot, contralateral neurons still reliably discriminated the putative target from the distracter, whereas ipsilateral neurons did not. The latter result indicates that target-distracter discrimination by contralateral neurons could occur independently of discrimination by ipsilateral cells; thus, the two cell types may represent two different components of the prefrontal circuitry underlying the allocation of attention to targets in the presence of distracters. Moreover, the response of both contralateral and ipsilateral neurons to a single target was substantially reduced by the presence of a distracter in the contralateral hemifield. This result suggests that the presence of the distracter triggered inhibitory interactions within the dlPFC circuitry that suppressed responses to the attended target.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".