Attentional selection and communication through coherence: Scope and limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synchronous neural oscillations are strongly associated with a variety of perceptual, cognitive, and behavioural processes. It has been proposed that the role of the synchronous oscillations in these processes is to facilitate information transmission between brain areas, the 'communication through coherence,' or CTC hypothesis. The details of how this mechanism would work, however, and its causal status, are still unclear. Here we investigate computationally a proposed mechanism for selective attention that directly implicates the CTC as causal. The mechanism involves alpha band (about 10 Hz) oscillations, originating in the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus, being sent to communicating cortical areas, organizing gamma (about 40 Hz) oscillations there, and thus facilitating phase coherence and communication between them. This is proposed to happen contingent on control signals sent from higher-level cortical areas to the thalamic reticular nucleus, which controls the alpha oscillations sent to cortex by the pulvinar. We studied the scope of this mechanism in parameter space, and limitations implied by this scope, using a computational implementation of our conceptual model. Our results indicate that, although the CTC-based mechanism can account for some effects of top-down and bottom-up attentional selection, its limitations indicate that an alternative mechanism, in which oscillatory coherence is caused by communication between brain areas rather than being a causal factor for it, might operate in addition to, or even instead of, the CTC mechanism.
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".