↓ Skip to main content

A hierarchy of timescales explains distinct effects of local inhibition of primary visual cortex and frontal eye fields

Overview of attention for article published in eLife, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
30 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A hierarchy of timescales explains distinct effects of local inhibition of primary visual cortex and frontal eye fields
Published in
eLife, September 2016
DOI 10.7554/elife.15252
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luca Cocchi, Martin V Sale, Leonardo L Gollo, Peter T Bell, Vinh T Nguyen, Andrew Zalesky, Michael Breakspear, Jason B Mattingley

Abstract

Within the primate visual system, areas at lower levels of the cortical hierarchy process basic visual features, whereas those at higher levels, such as the frontal eye fields (FEF), are thought to modulate sensory processes via feedback connections. Despite these functional exchanges during perception, there is little shared activity between early and late visual regions at rest. How interactions emerge between regions encompassing distinct levels of the visual hierarchy remains unknown. Here we combined neuroimaging, non-invasive cortical stimulation and computational modelling to characterize changes in functional interactions across widespread neural networks before and after local inhibition of primary visual cortex or FEF. We found that stimulation of early visual cortex selectively increased feedforward interactions with FEF and extrastriate visual areas, whereas identical stimulation of the FEF decreased feedback interactions with early visual areas. Computational modelling suggests that these opposing effects reflect a fast-slow timescale hierarchy from sensory to association areas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 124 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 30%
Researcher 25 20%
Student > Master 8 6%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 25 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 34 27%
Psychology 24 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Engineering 6 5%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 38 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,241,370
of 24,319,828 outputs
Outputs from eLife
#3,951
of 14,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,257
of 340,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from eLife
#83
of 340 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,319,828 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,864 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,495 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 340 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.