Entrainment of theta, not alpha, oscillations is predictive of the brightness enhancement of a flickering stimulus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frequency-dependent brightness enhancement, where a flickering light can appear twice as bright as an equiluminant constant light, has been reported to exist within the alpha (8-12 Hz) band. Could oscillatory neural activity be driving this perceptual effect? Here, in two experiments, human subjects reported which of two flickering stimuli were brighter. Strikingly, 4 Hz stimuli were reported as brighter more than 80% of the time when compared to all other tested frequencies, even though all stimuli were equiluminant and of equal temporal length. Electroencephalography recordings showed that inter-trial phase coherence (ITC) of theta (4 Hz) was: (1) Significantly greater than alpha, contralateral to the flickering stimulus; (2) Enhanced by the presence of a second ipsilateral 4 Hz flickering stimulus; and (3) Uniquely lateralized, unlike the alpha band. Importantly, on trials with two identical stimuli (i.e. 4 Hz vs 4 Hz), the brightness discrimination judgment could be predicted by the hemispheric balance in the amount of 4 Hz ITC. We speculate that the theta rhythm plays a distinct information transfer role, where its ability to share information between hemispheres via entrainment promotes a better processing of visual information to inform a discrimination decision.
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 | 0.000 | 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".