A lateralized alpha-band marker of the interference of exogenous attention over endogenous attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current theories of attention differentiate exogenous from endogenous orienting of visuospatial attention. While both forms of attention orienting engage different functional systems, endogenous and exogenous attention are thought to share resources, as shown by empirical evidence of their functional interactions. The present study aims to uncover the neurobiological basis of how salient events that drive exogenous attention disrupts endogenous attention processes. We hypothesize that interference from exogenous attention over endogenous attention involves alpha-band activity, a neural marker of visuospatial attention. To test this hypothesis, we contrast the effects of endogenous attention across two experimental tasks while we recorded electroencephalography (n = 32, both sexes): a single cueing task where endogenous attention is engaged in isolation, and a double cueing task where endogenous attention is concurrently engaged with exogenous attention. Our results confirm that the concurrent engagement of exogenous attention interferes with endogenous attention processes. We also found that changes in alpha-band activity mediate the relationship between endogenous attention and its effect on task performance, and that the interference of exogenous attention on endogenous attention occurs via the moderation of this indirect effect. Altogether, our results substantiate a model of attention, whereby endogenous and exogenous attentional processes involve the same neurophysiological resources. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Scientists differentiate top-down from bottom-up visuospatial attention processes. While bottom-up attention is rapidly engaged by emerging demands from the environment, top-down attention in contrast reflects slow voluntary shifts of spatial attention. Several lines of research substantiate the idea that top-down and bottom-up attentional processes involve distinct functional systems. An increasing number of studies, however, argue that both attention systems share brain processing resources. The current study examines how salient visual events that engage bottom-up processes interfere with top-down attentional processes. Using neurophysiological recordings and multivariate pattern classification techniques, the authors show that these patterns of interference occur within the alpha-band of neural activity (8-12 Hz), which implies that bottom-up and top-down attention processes share this narrow-band frequency brain resource. The results further demonstrate that patterns of alpha-band activity explains, in part, the interference between top-down and bottom-up attention at the behavioral level.
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".