ArticleCommunications biology2022
Attention modulates neural representation to render reconstructions according to subjective appearance.
Article in Communications biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational neural dynamics of goal-directed visual attention in macaques.Science advances · 2026Article
- Inter-individual and inter-site neural code conversion without shared stimuli.Nature computational science · 2025Article
- Natural sounds can be reconstructed from human neuroimaging data using deep neural network representation.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Eye-brain connection: an altered profile of spatial attention in myopia.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Opposing brain signatures of sleep in task-based and resting-state conditions.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Reconstructing visual illusory experiences from human brain activity.Science advances · 2023Article
- Semantic reconstruction of continuous language from non-invasive brain recordings.Nature neuroscience · 2023Article
- Visualizing the mind's eye: a future perspective on applications of image reconstruction from brain signals to psychiatry.Psychoradiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Stimulus images can be reconstructed from visual cortical activity. However, our perception of stimuli is shaped by both stimulus-induced and top-down processes, and it is unclear whether and how reconstructions reflect top-down aspects of perception. Here, we investigate the effect of attention on reconstructions using fMRI activity measured while subjects attend to one of two superimposed images. A state-of-the-art method is used for image reconstruction, in which brain activity is translated (decoded) to deep neural network (DNN) features of hierarchical layers then to an image. Reconstructions resemble the attended rather than unattended images. They can be modeled by superimposed images with biased contrasts, comparable to the appearance during attention. Attentional modulations are found in a broad range of hierarchical visual representations and mirror the brain-DNN correspondence. Our results demonstrate that top-down attention counters stimulus-induced responses, modulating neural representations to render reconstructions in accordance with subjective appearance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.