ArticleNeurobiology of learning and memory2024
Attentional processing in the rat dorsal posterior parietal cortex.
Article in Neurobiology of learning and memory, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A matter of complexity? The role of the dorsal posterior parietal cortex in processing changes in spatial information across time.Behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The human posterior parietal cortex (PPC) is known to support sustained attention. Specifically, top-down attention is generally processed in dorsal regions while bottom-up regulation occurs more ventrally. In rodent models, however, it is still unclear whether the PPC is required for sustained attention, or whether there is a similar functional dissociation between anatomical regions. Consequently, the aim of this study was to investigate the contribution of the rodent dorsal PPC (dPPC) in sustained attention. We used the five-choice serial reaction time task (5CSRTT) and compared rats with neurotoxic dPPC lesions to sham operated rats. We found that rats with dPPC lesions were less accurate and took longer to make correct choices, indicating impaired attention and reduced processing speed. This effect, however, was limited to the first few days of post-operative testing. After an apparent recovery, omissions became elevated in the lesion group, which, in the absence of reduced motivation and mobility, can also be interpreted as impaired attention. In subsequent challenge probes, the lesion group displayed globally elevated latency to make a correct response, indicating reduced processing speed. No differences in premature responses or perseverative responses were observed at any time, demonstrating that dPPC lesions did not affect impulsivity and compulsivity. This pattern of behavior suggests that while intact dPPC supports goal-driven (top-down) modulation of attention, it likely does not play a central role in processing stimulus-driven (bottom-up) attention. Furthermore, compensatory mechanisms can support sustained attention in the absence of a fully functioning dPPC, although this occurs at the expense of processing speed. Our results inform the literature by confirming that rodent PPC is involved in regulating sustained attention and providing preliminary evidence for a functional dissociation between top-down and bottom-up attentional processing.
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.