ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2024
Neurons of Macaque Frontal Eye Field Signal Reward-Related Surprise.
Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The frontal eye field (FEF) plays a well-established role in the control of visual attention. The strength of an FEF neuron's response to a visual stimulus presented in its receptive field is enhanced if the stimulus captures spatial attention by virtue of its salience. A stimulus can be rendered salient by cognitive factors as well as by physical attributes. These include surprise. The aim of the present experiment was to determine whether surprise-induced salience would result in enhanced visual-response strength in the FEF. Toward this end, we monitored neuronal activity in two male monkeys while presenting first a visual cue predicting with high probability that the reward delivered at the end of the trial would be good or bad (large or small) and then a visual cue announcing the size of the impending reward with certainty. The second cue usually confirmed but occasionally violated the expectation set up by the first cue. Neurons responded more strongly to the second cue when it violated than when it confirmed expectation. The increase in the firing rate was accompanied by a decrease in spike-count correlation as expected from capture of attention. Although both good surprise and bad surprise induced enhanced firing, the effects appeared to arise from distinct mechanisms as indicated by the fact that the bad-surprise signal appeared at a longer latency than the good-surprise signal and by the fact that the strength of the two signals varied independently across neurons.
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.