Alpha oscillations shape sensory representation and perceptual sensitivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Alpha activity (8–14 Hz) is the dominant rhythm in the awake brain, and thought to play an important role in setting the brain’s internal state. Previous work has associated states of decreased alpha power with enhanced neural excitability. However, evidence is mixed on whether and how such excitability enhancement modulates sensory signals of interest versus noise differently, and what, if any, the consequences are for subsequent perception. Here, human subjects (male and female) performed a visual detection task in which we manipulated their decision criteria in a block-wise manner. While our manipulation led to substantial criterion shifts, these shifts were not reflected in pre-stimulus alpha-band changes. Rather, lower pre-stimulus alpha power in occipital-parietal areas improved perceptual sensitivity and enhanced information content decodable from neural activity patterns. Additionally, oscillatory alpha phase immediately before stimulus presentation modulated accuracy. Together, our results suggest that alpha-band dynamics modulate sensory signals of interest more strongly than noise. Significance statement The internal state of our brain fluctuates, giving rise to variability in perception and action. Neural oscillations, most prominently in the alpha-band, have been suggested to play a role in setting this internal state. Here, we show that ongoing alpha-band activity in occipital-parietal regions predicts the quality of visual information decodable in neural activity patterns, and subsequently human observer’s sensitivity in a visual detection task. Our results provide comprehensive evidence that visual representation is modulated by ongoing alpha-band activity, and advance our understanding on how, when faced with unchanging external stimuli, internal neural fluctuations influence perception and behavior.
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) | 0.002 | 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".