Causal evidence for increased theta and gamma phase consistency in a parieto-frontal network during the maintenance of visual attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endogenous visuo-spatial attention is under the control of a fronto-parietal network of brain regions. One key node in this network, the intra-parietal sulcus (IPS), plays a crucial role in maintaining endogenous attention, but little is known about its ongoing physiology and network dynamics during different attentional states. Here, we investigated the reactivity of the left IPS in response to brain stimulation under different states of selective attention. We recorded electroencephalography (EEG) in response to single pulses of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the IPS, while participants (N = 44) viewed bilateral random-dot motion displays. Individual MRI-guided TMS pulses targeted the left IPS, while the left primary somatosensory cortex (S1) served as an active control site. In separate blocks of trials, participants were cued to attend covertly to the motion display in one hemifield (left or right) and to report brief coherent motion targets. The perceptual load of the task was manipulated by varying the degree of motion coherence of the targets. Excitability, variability and information content of the neural responses to TMS were assessed by analysing TMS-evoked potential (TEP) amplitude and inter-trial phase clustering (ITPC), and by performing multivariate decoding of attentional state. Results revealed that a left posterior region displayed reduced variability in the phase of theta and gamma oscillations following TMS of the IPS, but not of S1, when attention was directed contralaterally, rather than ipsilaterally to the stimulation site. A right frontal cluster also displayed reduced theta variability and increased amplitude of TEPs when attention was directed contralaterally rather than ipsilaterally, after TMS of the IPS but not S1. Reliable decoding of attentional state was achieved after TMS pulses of both S1 and IPS. Taken together, our findings suggest that endogenous control of visuo-spatial attention leads to changes in the intrinsic oscillatory properties of the IPS and its associated fronto-parietal network.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".