MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2971719019 · doi:10.1101/747204

Global Effects of Feature-based Attention Depend on Surprise

2019· preprint· en· W2971719019 on OpenAlexaff
Cooper Smout, Marta I. Garrido, Jason B. Mattingley

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersCentre of Excellence for Integrative Brain Function, Australian Research CouncilAustralian Research Council
KeywordsSurpriseSalience (neuroscience)Computer scienceStimulus (psychology)Feature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceAttention networkElectroencephalographyFixation (population genetics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Cognitive psychologyPsychologyCommunicationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent studies have shown that prediction and attention can interact under various circumstances, suggesting that the two processes are based on interdependent neural mechanisms. In the visual modality, attention can be deployed to the location of a task-relevant stimulus (‘spatial attention’) or to a specific feature of the stimulus, such as colour or shape, irrespective of its location (‘feature-based attention’). Here we asked whether predictive processes are influenced by feature-based attention outside the current spatial focus of attention. Across two experiments, we recorded neural activity with electroencephalography (EEG) as human observers performed a feature-based attention task at fixation and ignored a stream of peripheral stimuli with predictable or surprising features. Central targets were defined by a single feature (colour or orientation) and differed in salience across the two experiments. Task-irrelevant peripheral patterns usually comprised one particular conjunction of features (standards), but occasionally deviated in one or both features (deviants). Consistent with previous studies, we found reliable effects of feature-based attention and prediction on neural responses to task-irrelevant patterns in both experiments. Crucially, we observed an interaction between prediction and feature-based attention in both experiments: the neural effect of feature-based attention was larger for surprising patterns than it was for predicted patterns. These findings suggest that global effects of feature-based attention depend on surprise, and are consistent with the idea that attention optimises the precision of predictions by modulating the gain of prediction errors. Significance Statement Two principal mechanisms facilitate the efficient processing of sensory information: prediction uses prior information to guide the interpretation of sensory events, whereas attention biases the processing of these events according to their behavioural relevance. A recent theory proposes to reconcile attention and prediction under a unifying framework, casting attention as a ‘precision optimisation’ mechanism that enhances the gain of prediction errors. Crucially, this theory suggests that attention and prediction interact to modulate neural responses, but this hypothesis remains to be tested with respect to feature-based attention mechanisms outside the spatial focus of attention. Here we show that global effects of feature-based attention are enhanced when stimuli possess surprising features, suggesting that feature-based attention and prediction are interdependent neural mechanisms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies→French-language works237,207→