Differential Sources for 2 Neural Signatures of Target Detection: An Electrocorticography Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrophysiology and neuroimaging provide conflicting evidence for the neural contributions to target detection. Scalp electroencephalography (EEG) studies localize the P3b event-related potential component mainly to parietal cortex, whereas neuroimaging studies report activations in both frontal and parietal cortices. We addressed this discrepancy by examining the sources that generate the target-detection process using electrocorticography (ECoG). We recorded ECoG activity from cortex in 14 patients undergoing epilepsy monitoring, as they performed an auditory or visual target-detection task. We examined target-related responses in 2 domains: high frequency band (HFB) activity and the P3b. Across tasks, we observed a greater proportion of electrodes that showed target-specific HFB power relative to P3b over frontal cortex, but their proportions over parietal cortex were comparable. Notably, there was minimal overlap in the electrodes that showed target-specific HFB and P3b activity. These results revealed that the target-detection process is characterized by at least 2 different neural markers with distinct cortical distributions. Our findings suggest that separate neural mechanisms are driving the differential patterns of activity observed in scalp EEG and neuroimaging studies, with the P3b reflecting EEG findings and HFB activity reflecting neuroimaging findings, highlighting the notion that target detection is not a unitary phenomenon.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".