Spatial Attention and Temporal Expectation Exert Differential Effects on Visual and Auditory Discrimination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anticipation of an impending stimulus shapes the state of the sensory systems, optimizing neural and behavioral responses. Here, we studied the role of brain oscillations in mediating spatial and temporal anticipations. Because spatial attention and temporal expectation are often associated with visual and auditory processing, respectively, we directly contrasted the visual and auditory modalities and asked whether these anticipatory mechanisms are similar in both domains. We recorded the magnetoencephalogram in healthy human participants performing an auditory and visual target discrimination task, in which cross-modal cues provided both temporal and spatial information with regard to upcoming stimulus presentation. Motivated by prior findings, we were specifically interested in delta (1-3 Hz) and alpha (8-13 Hz) band oscillatory state in anticipation of target presentation and their impact on task performance. Our findings support the view that spatial attention has a stronger effect in the visual domain, whereas temporal expectation effects are more prominent in the auditory domain. For the spatial attention manipulation, we found a typical pattern of alpha lateralization in the visual system, which correlated with response speed. Providing a rhythmic temporal cue led to increased postcue synchronization of low-frequency rhythms, although this effect was more broadband in nature, suggesting a general phase reset rather than frequency-specific neural entrainment. In addition, we observed delta-band synchronization with a frontal topography, which correlated with performance, especially in the auditory task. Combined, these findings suggest that spatial and temporal anticipations operate via a top-down modulation of the power and phase of low-frequency oscillations, respectively.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".