Differences in Rhythmic Neural Activity Supporting the Temporal and Spatial Cueing of Attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neural processes serving the orienting of attention toward goal-relevant stimuli are generally examined with informative cues that direct visual attention to a spatial location. However, cues predicting the temporal emergence of an object are also known to be effective in attentional orienting but are implemented less often. Differences in the neural oscillatory dynamics supporting these divergent types of attentional orienting have only rarely been examined. In this study, we utilized magnetoencephalography and an adapted Posner cueing task to investigate the spectral specificity of neural oscillations underlying these different types of attentional orienting (i.e., spatial vs. temporal). We found a spectral dissociation of attentional cueing, such that alpha (10-16 Hz) oscillations were central to spatial orienting and theta (3-6 Hz) oscillations were critical to temporal orienting. Specifically, we observed robust decreases in alpha power during spatial orienting in key attention areas (i.e., lateral occipital, posterior cingulate, and hippocampus), along with strong theta increases during temporal orienting in the primary visual cortex. These results suggest that the oscillatory dynamics supporting attentional orienting are spectrally and anatomically specific, such that spatial orienting is served by stronger alpha oscillations in attention regions, whereas temporal orienting is associated with stronger theta responses in visual sensory regions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".