MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4237544780 · doi:10.1101/2021.05.12.443763

How spatial attention affects the decision process: looking through the lens of Bayesian hierarchical diffusion model & EEG analysis

2021· preprint· en· W4237544780 on OpenAlexaff
Amin Ghaderi-Kangavari, Kourosh Parand, Reza Ebrahimpour, Michael D. Nunez, Jamal Amani Rad

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBayesian probabilityArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceBayesian inferenceCognitionPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Model-based cognitive neuroscience elucidates the cognitive processes and neurophysiological oscillations that lead to behavioral performance in cognitive tasks (e.g., response times and accuracy). In this paper we explore the underlying latent process of spatial prioritization in perceptual decision processes, based on one well-known sequential sampling model (SSM), the drift-diffusion model (DDM), and subsequent nested model comparison. Neural components of spatial attention which contributed to the latent process and behavioral performance in a visual face-car perceptual decision were detected based on both time-frequency decomposition and event-related potential (ERP) analysis. For estimating DDM 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 performed simultaneously on the group and individual level. Our cognitive modeling analysis revealed that spatial attention changed the non-decision time parameter across experimental conditions, such that a model with a changing non-decision time parameter provides a better fit to the data than other model parameters, quantified using the deviance information criterion (DIC) score and R-squared. Using multiple regression analysis on the contralateral minus neutral N2 sub-component (N2nc) at central electrodes, it can be concluded that poststimulus N2nc can predict mean response times (RTs) and non-decision time parameters related to spatial prioritization. However the contralateral minus neutral alpha power (Anc) at parieto-occipital electrodes can only predict the mean RTs and not the non-decision time relating to spatial prioritization. It was also found that the difference of contralateral minus neutral neural oscillations were more reflective of the modulation of the top-down spatial attention in comparison to the difference of ipsilateral minus neutral neural oscillations. These results suggest that individual differences in spatial attention are encoded by contralateral (and not ipsilateral) N2 oscillations and non-decision times. This work highlights how model-based Cognitive Neuroscience can further reveal the role of EEG in spatial attention during perceptual decision making.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicNeural dynamics and brain function→French-language works237,207→