Attention to visual motion suppresses neuronal and behavioral sensitivity in nearby feature space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Feature-based attention prioritizes the processing of the attended feature while strongly suppressing the processing of nearby ones. This creates a non-linearity or "attentional suppressive surround" predicted by the Selective Tuning model of visual attention. However, previously reported effects of feature-based attention on neuronal responses are linear, e.g., feature-similarity gain. Here, we investigated this apparent contradiction by neurophysiological and psychophysical approaches. RESULTS: Responses of motion direction-selective neurons in area MT/MST of monkeys were recorded during a motion task. When attention was allocated to a stimulus moving in the neurons' preferred direction, response tuning curves showed its minimum for directions 60-90° away from the preferred direction, an attentional suppressive surround. This effect was modeled via the interaction of two Gaussian fields representing excitatory narrowly tuned and inhibitory widely tuned inputs into a neuron, with feature-based attention predominantly increasing the gain of inhibitory inputs. We further showed using a motion repulsion paradigm in humans that feature-based attention produces a similar non-linearity on motion discrimination performance. CONCLUSIONS: Our results link the gain modulation of neuronal inputs and tuning curves examined through the feature-similarity gain lens to the attentional impact on neural population responses predicted by the Selective Tuning model, providing a unified framework for the documented effects of feature-based attention on neuronal responses and behavior.
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".