MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085898415 · doi:10.1162/089892902320474553

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Human Frontal Eye Field: Effects on Visual Perception and Attention

2002· article· en· W2085898415 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Hélène Grosbras, Tomáš Paus

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTranscranial magnetic stimulationPerceptionNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyStimulationSupplementary eye fieldVisual perceptionVisual fieldEye movementSaccadic masking

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When looking at one object, human subjects can shift their attention to another object in their visual field without moving the eyes. Such shifts of attention activate the same brain regions as those involved in the execution of eye movements. Here we investigate the role of one of the main cortical oculomotor area, namely, the frontal eye field (FEF), in shifts of attention. We used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a technique known to disrupt transiently eye-movements preparation. We hypothesized that if the FEF is a necessary element in the network involved in shifting attention without moving the eyes, then#10; TMS should also disrupt visuospatial attention. For each volunteer, we positioned the TMS coil over the probabilistic anatomical location of the FEF, and we verified that single pulses delayed eye movements. We then applied TMS during a visuospatial attention task. In this task, a central arrow directed shifts of attention and the subject responded by a keypress to a subsequent visual peripheral target without moving the eyes from the central fixation point. In a few trials, the cue was invalid or uninformative, yielding slower responses than when the cue was valid. We delivered single pulses either 53 msec before or 70 msec after target onset. Contrary to our prediction, the main effect of the stimulation was a decrease in reaction time when it was applied 53 msec before target onset. TMS over the left hemisphere facilitated responses to targets in the right hemifield only and for all cueing conditions, whereas TMS over the right hemisphere had a bilateral effect for valid and neutral but not invalid cueing. Thus, TMS interfered with shift of attention only in the case of right hemisphere stimulation: it increased the cost of invalid cueing. Our results suggest that TMS over the FEF facilitates visual detection, and thereby reduces reaction time. This finding provides new insights into the role of the human FEF in processing visual information. The functional asymmetry observed for both facilitation of visual detection and interference with shifts of attention provides further evidence for the dominance of the right hemisphere for those processes. Our results also underline that the disruptive or facilitative effect of TMS over a given region depends upon the behavioral context.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations214
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric DysfunctionFrench-language works237,207