Attentional modulation of inter-areal coherence explained by frequency shifts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inter-areal coherence has been hypothesized as a mechanism for inter-areal communication. Indeed, empirical studies have observed an increase in inter-areal coherence with attention. Yet, the mechanisms underlying changes in coherence remain largely unknown. Both attention and stimulus salience are associated with shifts in the peak frequency of gamma oscillations in V1, which suggests that the frequency of oscillations may play a role in facilitating changes in inter-areal communication and coherence. In this study, we used computational modeling to investigate how the peak frequency of a sender influences inter-areal coherence. We show that changes in the magnitude of coherence are largely determined by the peak frequency of the sender. However, the pattern of coherence depends on the intrinsic properties of the receiver, specifically whether the receiver integrates or resonates with its synaptic inputs. Because resonant receivers are frequency-selective, resonance has been proposed as a mechanism for selective communication. However, the pattern of coherence changes produced by a resonant receiver is inconsistent with empirical studies. By contrast, an integrator receiver does produce the pattern of coherence with frequency shifts in the sender observed in empirical studies. These results indicate that coherence can be a misleading measure of inter-areal interactions. This led us to develop a new measure of inter-areal interactions, which we refer to as Explained Power. We show that Explained Power maps directly to the signal transmitted by the sender filtered by the receiver, and thus provides a method to quantify the true signals transmitted between the sender and receiver. Together, these findings provide a model of changes in inter-areal coherence and Granger-causality as a result of frequency shifts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".