Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many behaviors require choosing between conflicting options competing against each other in visuomotor areas. Such choices can benefit from top-down control processes engaging frontal areas in advance of conflict when it is anticipated. Yet, very little is known about how this proactive control system shapes the visuomotor competition. Here, we used electroencephalography in human subjects (male and female) to identify the visual and motor correlates of conflict expectation in a version of the Eriksen Flanker task that required left or right responses according to the direction of a central target arrow surrounded by congruent or incongruent (conflicting) flankers. Visual conflict was either highly expected (it occurred in 80% of trials; mostly incongruent blocks) or very unlikely (20% of trials; mostly congruent blocks). We evaluated selective attention in the visual cortex by recording target- and flanker-related steady-state visual-evoked potentials (SSVEPs) and probed action selection by measuring response-locked potentials (RLPs) in the motor cortex. Conflict expectation enhanced accuracy in incongruent trials, but this improvement occurred at the cost of speed in congruent trials. Intriguingly, this behavioral adjustment occurred while visuomotor activity was less finely tuned: target-related SSVEPs were smaller while flanker-related SSVEPs were higher in mostly incongruent blocks than in mostly congruent blocks, and incongruent trials were associated with larger RLPs in the ipsilateral (nonselected) motor cortex. Hence, our data suggest that conflict expectation recruits control processes that augment the tolerance for inappropriate visuomotor activations (rather than processes that downregulate their amplitude), allowing for overflow activity to occur without having it turn into the selection of an incorrect response. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Motor choices made in front of discordant visual information are more accurate when conflict can be anticipated, probably due to the engagement of top-down control from frontal areas. How this control system modulates activity within visual and motor areas is unknown. Here, we show that, when control processes are recruited in anticipation of conflict, as evidenced by higher midfrontal theta activity, visuomotor activity is less finely tuned: visual processing of the goal-relevant location was reduced and the motor cortex displayed more inappropriate activations, compared with when conflict was unlikely. We argue that conflict expectation is associated with an expansion of the distance-to-selection threshold, improving accuracy while the need for online control of visuomotor activity is reduced.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".