Frontal lobes and attention: Processes and networks, fractionation and integration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The frontal lobes (FL), are they a general adaptive global capacity processor, or a series of fractionated processes? Our lesion studies focusing on attention have demonstrated impairments in distinct processes due to pathology in different frontal regions, implying fractionation of the "supervisory system." However, when task demands are manipulated, it becomes evident that the frontal lobes are not just a series of independent processes. Increased complexity of task demands elicits greater involvement of frontal regions along a fixed network related to a general activation process. For some task demands, one or more anatomically distinct frontal processes may be recruited. In other conditions, there is a bottom-up nonfrontal/frontal network, with impairment noted maximally for the lesser task demands in the nonfrontal automatic processing regions, and then as task demands change, increased involvement of different frontal (more "strategic") regions, until it appears all frontal regions are involved. With other measures, the network is top-down, with impairment in the measure first noted in the frontal region and then, with changing task demands, involving a posterior region. Adaptability is not just a property of FL, it is the fluid recruitment of different processes anywhere in the brain as required by the current task.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it