Top–Down Attentional Modulation in Human Frontal Cortex: Differential Engagement during External and Internal Attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decades of electrophysiological research on top-down control converge on the role of the lateral frontal cortex in facilitating attention to behaviorally relevant external inputs. However, the involvement of frontal cortex in the top-down control of attention directed to the external versus internal environment remains poorly understood. To address this, we recorded intracranial electrocorticography while subjects directed their attention externally to tones and responded to infrequent target tones, or internally to their own thoughts while ignoring the tones. Our analyses focused on frontal and temporal cortices. We first computed the target effect, as indexed by the difference in high frequency activity (70-150 Hz) between target and standard tones. Importantly, we then compared the target effect between external and internal attention, reflecting a top-down attentional effect elicited by task demands, in each region of interest. Both frontal and temporal cortices showed target effects during external and internal attention, suggesting this effect is present irrespective of attention states. However, only the frontal cortex showed an enhanced target effect during external relative to internal attention. These findings provide electrophysiological evidence for top-down attentional modulation in the lateral frontal cortex, revealing preferential engagement with external attention.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".