↓ Skip to main content

The functional anatomy of attention: a DCM study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 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
The functional anatomy of attention: a DCM study
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00784
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harriet R. Brown, Karl J. Friston

Abstract

Recent formulations of attention-in terms of predictive coding-associate attentional gain with the expected precision of sensory information. Formal models of the Posner paradigm suggest that validity effects can be explained in a principled (Bayes optimal) fashion in terms of a cue-dependent setting of precision or gain on the sensory channels reporting anticipated target locations, which is updated selectively by invalid targets. This normative model is equipped with a biologically plausible process theory in the form of predictive coding, where precision is encoded by the gain of superficial pyramidal cells reporting prediction error. We used dynamic causal modeling to assess the evidence in magnetoencephalographic responses for cue-dependent and top-down updating of superficial pyramidal cell gain. Bayesian model comparison suggested that it is almost certain that differences in superficial pyramidal cells gain-and its top-down modulation-contribute to observed responses; and we could be more than 80% certain that anticipatory effects on post-synaptic gain are limited to visual (extrastriate) sources. These empirical results speak to the role of attention in optimizing perceptual inference and its formulation in terms of predictive coding.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 130 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 26%
Researcher 31 23%
Professor 14 10%
Student > Master 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 14 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 26%
Neuroscience 25 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 10%
Engineering 7 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 4%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 29 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 February 2014.
All research outputs
#14,049,244
of 24,594,795 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,750
of 7,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,285
of 290,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#502
of 860 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,594,795 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 290,597 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.