Identifying individual's distractor suppression using functional connectivity between anatomical large-scale brain regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distractor suppression (DS) is crucial in goal-oriented behaviors, referring to the ability to suppress irrelevant information. Current evidence points to the prefrontal cortex as an origin region of DS, while subcortical, occipital, and temporal regions are also implicated. The present study aimed to examine the contribution of communications between these brain regions to visual DS. To do it, we recruited two independent cohorts of participants for the study. One cohort participated in a visual search experiment where a salient distractor triggering distractor suppression to measure their DS and the other cohort filled out a Cognitive Failure Questionnaire to assess distractibility in daily life. Both cohorts collected resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) data to investigate function connectivity (FC) underlying DS. First, we generated predictive models of the DS measured in visual search task using resting-state functional connectivity between large anatomical regions. It turned out that the models could successfully predict individual's DS, indicated by a significant correlation between the actual and predicted DS (r = 0.32, p < 0.01). Importantly, Prefrontal-Temporal, Insula-Limbic and Parietal-Occipital connections contributed to the prediction model. Furthermore, the model could also predict individual's daily distractibility in the other independent cohort (r = -0.34, p < 0.05). Our findings showed the efficiency of the predictive models of distractor suppression encompassing connections between large anatomical regions and highlighted the importance of the communications between attention-related and visual information processing regions in distractor suppression. Current findings may potentially provide neurobiological markers of visual distractor suppression.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".