Individual differences in perceptual capacity depend on aperiodic slope, not alpha oscillations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Visual processing is subject to strict capacity limitations that restrict the number of stimuli that can be individuated, that is, distinguished as separate objects, to around 3-4 items at a time. The neural mechanisms that give rise to this ‘subitizing’ limit are unclear. Here, we tested an account of the subitizing limit that attributes it to the amount of information that can be processed within one cycle of the 8-14 Hz alpha oscillation. This account proposes that the subitizing limit should be correlated with an individual’s alpha oscillation frequency. We pitted this account against one based on neural excitatory-inhibitory balance, as indexed by the slope of the aperiodic component of the electrophysiological power spectrum. To test these accounts, we had human participants (N=51; 37 females) complete a visual enumeration task while we measured their brain activity with electroencephalography (EEG). We extracted aperiodic and alpha-band activity from the pre-stimulus period and correlated these with model-based estimates of individuals’ subitizing capacity. Alpha oscillations were not correlated with subitizing capacity within-participants or as individual differences, but they were associated with other elements of enumeration performance, including baseline reaction times and the slope of the performance decrement outside the subitizing range. By contrast, individual differences in aperiodic slope reliably predicted individuals’ subitizing capacity. These results suggest that differences in neural excitatory:inhibitory balance are the source of individuation-related capacity limits, not alpha-frequency sampling. Significance Statement Busy, multi-element visual scenes are common in daily life. Human visual perception, however, is capacity limited, individuating only 3-4 objects at a time. The source of these capacity limitations is currently unknown. This work examines the neural correlates of perceptual capacity within and between individuals, comparing a rhythmic ‘pulsed inhibition’ account with one based on the arhythmic balance of neural excitation and inhibition. Our results demonstrate that individuals with more arhythmic inhibition demonstrate greater perceptual capacity. These results help to explain how excitation and inhibition across populations of neurons sculpts the capacity of the neural system and suggest targets for future interventions to improve perceptual capacity with arhythmic brain stimulation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".