MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137654174 · doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.6.907

The Role of the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in Bimodal Divided Attention: Two Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies

2007· article· en· W2137654174 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer A. Johnson, Antonio P. Strafella, Robert J. Zatorre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDorsolateral prefrontal cortexPsychologyTranscranial magnetic stimulationStimulus modalityModalitiesNeuroscienceDorsolateralWorking memoryModality (human–computer interaction)Prefrontal cortexCognitive psychologySensory systemStimulationCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neural processes underlying the ability to divide attention between multiple sensory modalities remain poorly understood. To investigate the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in bimodal divided attention, we completed two repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) studies. We tested the hypothesis that the DLPFC is necessary in the ability to divide attention across modalities. This hypothesis originated as a result of a previous fMRI study in which the posterior DLPFC was active during a bimodal divided attention condition [Johnson, J. A., & Zatorre, R. J. Neural substrates for dividing and focusing attention between simultaneous auditory and visual events. Neuroimage, 2006]. In the current experiments, two separate groups of subjects underwent 10 min of slow rTMS to temporarily disrupt function of the DLPFC. In both groups, the ability to divide attention between unrelated auditory and visual stimuli decreased following DLPFC disruption compared to control site stimulation. Specifically, the ability to divide attention between modalities was hindered, leading to a pattern of behavior similar to bimodal selective attention (ability to attend to one or the other modality but not both). We discuss possible roles of the posterior DLPFC in bimodal divided attention and conclude that the area may be functioning to support the increased working memory load associated with divided, compared to selective attention.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations92
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207