Anticipatory cue‐related alpha desynchronization reflects top‐down disinhibitory control during verbal working memory task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Working memory deficits are common in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and cause troubles in routine activities. Frontal theta event‐related synchronization (ERS) and parietal alpha event‐related desynchronization (ERD) are known to be associated with working memory capacity. However, their association with working memory performance, including at the trial‐by‐trial level, has yet to be determined. Method 54 healthy adults (mean age (SD) = 28.4 (7.4)) completed the N‐back working memory task at three conditions (N = 1, 2, and 3). Single‐trial ERS/ERD was measured during N‐back and in response to an anticipatory cue at the beginning of each trial. Anticipatory cue‐related power changes at the trial level were used to assess neural oscillation before target correct (TC) and target non‐correct (TNC) responses. Result 2‐way ANOVA showed significant effect of response type (p=0.01) and interaction between N‐back condition and response type (p=0.03) on alpha ERD. Post‐hoc comparisons revealed less alpha ERD in TC vs. TNC responses during 2‐ and 3‐back conditions (p’s < 0.02), and less alpha ERD in TC trials of 2‐ and 3‐back compared to 1‐back condition (p’s < 0.001). Finally, no significant effect was observed in theta band. Conclusion Given that alpha ERD has been associated with top‐down disinhibitory control, our findings suggest that less anticipatory disinhibition prior to the processing of a working memory item of information promotes correct processing and high‐capacity working memory
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".