Attention Systems and the Organization of the Human Parietal Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging was used to compare activity in the human parietal cortex in two attention-switching paradigms. On each trial of the visual switching (VS) paradigm, subjects attended to one of two visual stimuli on the basis of either their color or shape. Trials were presented in blocks interleaved with cues instructing subjects to either continue attending to the currently relevant dimension or to switch to the other stimulus dimension. In the response switching (RS) paradigm, subjects made one of two manual responses to the single stimulus presented on each trial. The rules for stimulus-response mapping were reversed on different trials. Trials were presented in blocks interleaved with cues that instructed subjects to either switch stimulus-response mapping rules or to continue with the current rule. Brain activity at "switch" and "stay" events was compared. The results revealed distinct parietal areas concerned with visual attentional set shifts (VS) and visuomotor intentional set shifts (RS). In VS, activity was recorded in the lateral part of the intraparietal region. In RS, activity was recorded in the posterior medial intraparietal region and adjacent posterior superior and dorsomedial parietal cortex. The results also suggest that the basic functional organization of the intraparietal sulcus and surrounding regions is similar in both macaque and human species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".