MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3161774031 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-518209/v1

How Spatial Attention Affects the Decision Process: Looking through the Lens of Bayesian Hierarchical Diffusion Model & EEG Analysis

2021· preprint· en· W3161774031 on OpenAlexaff
Amin Ghaderi-Kangavari, Jamal Amani Rad, Kourosh Parand, Reza Ebrahimpour

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian probabilityBayesian inferenceComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBayesian hierarchical modelingCognitionPerceptionPattern recognition (psychology)PsychologyMachine learningNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Model-based cognitive neuroscience consolidates the cognitive processes and neurophysiological oscillations which are reflections of behavioral performance (e.g., reaction times and accuracy). Here, based on one of well-known sequential sampling models (SSMs), named the diffusion decision model, and the nested model comparison, we explore the underlying latent process of spatial prioritization in perceptual decision processes, so that for estimating the model parameters (i.e. the drift rate, the boundary separation, and the non-decision time), a Bayesian hierarchical approach is considered, which allows inferences to be done simultaneously in the group and individual level. Moreover, well-established neural components of spatial attention which contributed to the latent process and behavioral performance in a visual face-car perceptual decision are detected based on the event-related potential (ERP) analysis. Our cognitive modeling analysis revealed that the non-decision time parameter provides a better fit to the top-down attention with the measures of two powerful weapons, i.e. the deviance information criterion called DIC score and R-square. Also, using multiple regression analysis on the contralateral minus neutral N2 sub-component (N2nc) at central electrodes and contralateral minus neutral alpha power (Anc) at posterior-occipital electrodes in the voluntary attention, it can be concluded that poststimulus N2nc can predict reaction time (RT) and non-decision time parameter relating to spatial prioritization. Whereas, the poststimulus Anc only can predict the RT and not the non-decision time relating to spatial prioritization. The result suggested that the difference of contralateral minus neutral oscillations was more important to reflect the modulation of the top-down spatial attention mechanism in comparison with the difference of ipsilateral minus neutral oscillations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicNeural dynamics and brain function→French-language works237,207→