The Role of Fronto‐Central Theta Oscillations in Inter‐Sensory Selective Attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selective attention supports top-down control by biasing information processing toward stimuli that are potentially relevant to the immediate goal. It has been recently proposed that theta band oscillations (~4-8 Hz) in the frontal midline regions are a key mechanism of endogenous selective attention. The current electroencephalography study investigated theta oscillatory dynamics using an inter-sensory cueing paradigm in which a symbolic cue indicated, on a trial-by-trial basis, the modality (visual or auditory) of the upcoming discrimination task. Time-frequency analyses were used to quantify phase- (evoked) and non-phase-locked (induced) fronto-central theta activity during preparatory attentional states. In a sample of 20 young adult participants, we found that those who relied on the cues to selectively attend to the sensory modality of the discrimination task performed more efficiently (i.e., faster and with greater accuracy) and presented greater non-phase-locked fronto-central theta power 200-400 ms post-cue onset. Moreover, greater non-phase-locked theta oscillations were associated with better behavioral performance. Secondary analyses on alpha oscillations revealed concomitant brain activity to theta with a pronounced decrease in alpha power in fronto-central regions, without significant effect on task performance. These findings suggest that increased non-phase-locked fronto-central theta oscillations are a neuronal correlate of preparatory attentional control and that the interplay of theta-alpha rhythms differentially contributes to attentional and perceptual aspects.
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".