Visual Attention in Peripersonal Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bringing the hand near a visual stimulus enhances visual processing. This effect is linked to peripersonal space (PPS), the body-centered region where visual and proprioceptive information interact. Despite extensive behavioral evidence, the neural basis of this interaction in early visual cortex remains unclear. In this study, we investigated how hand proximity modulates orientation selectivity in area V2 by recording single-neuron responses from two rhesus monkeys. The monkeys performed a fixation task while their hand was positioned near a visual stimulus while either being visible or occluded, and compared with when the hand was away from the stimulus. When the near hand was visible, neural firing rates in V2 were significantly higher, accompanied by sharper orientation tuning. In contrast, occluding the hand broadened orientation tuning compared to when the hand was away. These effects emerged rapidly after stimulus onset and were coherent across the population, demonstrating that PPS is actively prioritized during visual processing. Together, the findings reveal two complementary (feedback) signals in V2: a congruence-driven enhancement when visual and proprioceptive inputs align, and a mismatch-driven suppression when they conflict, indicating that V2 integrates multisensory cues to encode PPS and support action-relevant visual processing.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".