The Role of Frontoparietal Cortex across the Functional Stages of Visual Search
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Areas in frontoparietal cortex have been shown to be active in a range of cognitive tasks and have been proposed to play a key role in goal-driven activities (Dosenbach, N. U. F., Fair, D. A., Miezin, F. M., Cohen, A. L., Wenger, K. K., Dosenbach, R. A. T., et al. Distinct brain networks for adaptive and stable task control in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 104, 11073–11078, 2007; Duncan, J. The multiple-demand (MD) system of the primate brain: Mental programs for intelligent behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 172–179, 2010). Here, we examine the role this frontoparietal system plays in visual search. Visual search, like many complex tasks, consists of a sequence of operations: target selection, stimulus–response (SR) mapping, and response execution. We independently manipulated the difficulty of target selection and SR mapping in a novel visual search task that involved identical stimulus displays. Enhanced activity was observed in areas of frontal and parietal cortex during both difficult target selection and SR mapping. In addition, anterior insula and ACC showed preferential representation of SR-stage information, whereas the medial frontal gyrus, precuneus, and inferior parietal sulcus showed preferential representation of target selection-stage information. A connectivity analysis revealed dissociable neural circuits underlying visual search. We hypothesize that these circuits regulate distinct mental operations associated with the allocation of spatial attention, stimulus decisions, shifts of task set from selection to SR mapping, and SR mapping. Taken together, the results show frontoparietal involvement in all stages of visual search and a specialization with respect to cognitive operations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".