Prefrontal Lesions Disrupt Posterior Alpha–Gamma Coordination of Visual Working Memory Representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How does the human brain prioritize different visual representations in working memory (WM)? Here, we define the oscillatory mechanisms supporting selection of "where" and "when" features from visual WM storage and investigate the role of pFC in feature selection. Fourteen individuals with lateral pFC damage and 20 healthy controls performed a visuospatial WM task while EEG was recorded. On each trial, two shapes were presented sequentially in a top/bottom spatial orientation. A retro-cue presented mid-delay prompted which of the two shapes had been in either the top/bottom spatial position or first/second temporal position. We found that cross-frequency coupling between parieto-occipital alpha (α; 8-12 Hz) oscillations and topographically distributed gamma (γ; 30-50 Hz) activity tracked selection of the distinct cued feature in controls. This signature of feature selection was disrupted in patients with pFC lesions, despite intact α-γ coupling independent of feature selection. These findings reveal a pFC-dependent parieto-occipital α-γ mechanism for the rapid selection of visual WM representations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".