MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141601474 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bht320

Intraparietal Sulcus Activity and Functional Connectivity Supporting Spatial Working Memory Manipulation

2013· article· en· W2141601474 on OpenAlexafffund
Signe Bray, Ramsha Almas, Aiden E. G. F. Arnold, Giuseppe Iaria, Glenda MacQueen

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Children's Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsIntraparietal sulcusWorking memoryNeuroscienceCovertPsychologyFunctional connectivityVisual spatial attentionCognitive psychologyVisual spacePosterior parietal cortexFunctional magnetic resonance imagingVisual perceptionCognitionPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intraparietal sulcus (IPS) is recruited during tasks requiring attention, maintenance and manipulation of information in working memory (WM). While WM tasks often show broad bilateral engagement along the IPS, topographic maps of contralateral (CL) visual space have been identified along the IPS, similar to retinotopic maps in visual cortex. In the present study, we asked how these visuotopic IPS regions are differentially involved in the maintenance and manipulation of spatial information in WM. Visuotopic mapping was performed in 26 participants to define regions of interest along the IPS, corresponding to previously described IPS0-4. In a separate task, we showed that while maintaining the location of a briefly flashed target in WM preferentially engaged CL IPS, manipulation of spatial information by mentally rotating the target around a circle engaged bilateral IPS, peaking in IPS1 in most participants. Functional connectivity analyses showed increased interaction between the IPS and prefrontal regions during manipulation, as well as interhemispheric interactions. Two control tasks demonstrated that covert attention shifts, and nonspatial manipulation (arithmetic), engaged patterns of IPS activation and connectivity that were distinct from WM manipulation. These findings add to our understanding of the role of IPS in spatial WM maintenance and manipulation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

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

Citations57
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207