Author response: Gain neuromodulation mediates task-relevant perceptual switches: evidence from pupillometry, fMRI, and RNN Modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perceptual updating has been hypothesized to rely on a network reset modulated by bursts of ascending neuromodulatory neurotransmitters, such as noradrenaline, abruptly altering the brain’s susceptibility to changing sensory activity. To test this hypothesis at a large-scale, we analysed an ambiguous figures task using pupillometry and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Behaviourally, qualitative shifts in the perceptual interpretation of an ambiguous image were associated with peaks in pupil diameter, an indirect readout of phasic bursts in neuromodulatory tone. We further hypothesized that stimulus ambiguity drives neuromodulatory tone leading to heightened neural gain, hastening perceptual switches. To explore this hypothesis computationally, we trained a recurrent neural network (RNN) on an analogous perceptual categorisation task, allowing gain to change dynamically with classification uncertainty. As predicted, higher gain accelerated perceptual switching by transiently destabilizing the network’s dynamical regime in periods of maximal uncertainty. We leveraged a low-dimensional readout of the RNN dynamics, to develop two novel macroscale predictions: perceptual switches should occur with peaks in low-dimensional brain state velocity and with a flattened egocentric energy landscape. Using fMRI we confirmed these predictions, highlighting the role of the neuromodulatory system in the large-scale network reconfigurations mediating adaptive perceptual updates.
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 | 0.003 | 0.036 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.009 |
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".