↓ Skip to main content

Do cortical gamma oscillations promote or suppress perception? An under-asked question with an over-assumed answer

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users
patent
11 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
209 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Do cortical gamma oscillations promote or suppress perception? An under-asked question with an over-assumed answer
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00595
Pubmed ID
Authors

William Sedley, Mark O. Cunningham

Abstract

Cortical gamma oscillations occur alongside perceptual processes, and in proportion to perceptual salience. They have a number of properties that make them ideal candidates to explain perception, including incorporating synchronized discharges of neural assemblies, and their emergence over a fast timescale consistent with that of perception. These observations have led to widespread assumptions that gamma oscillations' role is to cause or facilitate conscious perception (i.e., a "positive" role). While the majority of the human literature on gamma oscillations is consistent with this interpretation, many or most of these studies could equally be interpreted as showing a suppressive or inhibitory (i.e., "negative") role. For example, presenting a stimulus and recording a response of increased gamma oscillations would only suggest a role for gamma oscillations in the representation of that stimulus, and would not specify what that role were; if gamma oscillations were inhibitory, then they would become selectively activated in response to the stimulus they acted to inhibit. In this review, we consider two classes of gamma oscillations: "broadband" and "narrowband," which have very different properties (and likely roles). We first discuss studies on gamma oscillations that are non-discriminatory, with respect to the role of gamma oscillations, followed by studies that specifically support specifically a positive or negative role. These include work on perception in healthy individuals, and in the pathological contexts of phantom perception and epilepsy. Reference is based as much as possible on magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) studies, but we also consider evidence from invasive recordings in humans and other animals. Attempts are made to reconcile findings within a common framework. We conclude with a summary of the pertinent questions that remain unanswered, and suggest how future studies might address these.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 196 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 23%
Researcher 45 22%
Student > Bachelor 22 11%
Student > Master 19 9%
Professor 12 6%
Other 32 15%
Unknown 30 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 59 28%
Psychology 38 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 9%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 17 8%
Unknown 43 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 26 March 2024.
All research outputs
#2,234,469
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,043
of 7,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,301
of 293,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#170
of 860 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 293,942 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 860 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.