Data from: Pop-out search instigates beta-gated feature selectivity enhancement across V4 layers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual search is a work-horse for investigating how attention interacts with processing of sensory information. Attentional selection has been linked to altered cortical sensory responses and feature preferences (i.e., tuning). However, attentional modulation of feature selectivity during search is largely unexplored. Here we map the spatiotemporal profile of feature selectivity during singleton search. Monkeys performed search where a pop-out feature determined the target of attention. We recorded laminar neural responses from visual area V4. We first identified “feature columns” which showed preference for individual colors. In the unattended condition, feature columns were significantly more selective in superficial relative to middle and deep layers. Attending a stimulus increased selectivity in all layers but not equally. Feature selectivity increased most in the deep layers, leading to higher selectivity in extragranular layers as compared to the middle layer. This attention-induced enhancement was rhythmically gated in phase with the beta-band local field potential. Beta power dominated both extragranular laminar compartments, but current source density analysis pointed to an origin in superficial layers, specifically. While beta-band power was present regardless of attentional state, feature selectivity was only gated by beta in the attended condition. Neither the beta oscillation nor its gating of feature selectivity varied with microsaccade production. Importantly, beta modulation of neural activity predicted response times, suggesting a direct link between attentional gating and behavioral output. Together, these findings suggest beta-range synaptic activation in V4's superficial layers rhythmically gates attentional enhancement of feature tuning in a way that affects the speed of attentional selection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".