Neuronal coherence during selective attentional processing and sensory–motor integration
Abstract
Groups of neurons synchronize their activities during a variety of conditions, but whether this synchronization is functionally relevant has remained a matter of debate. Here, we survey recent findings showing that synchronization is dynamically modulated during cognitive processes. Based on this evidence, synchronization appears to reflect a general mechanism that renders interactions among selective subsets of neurons effective. We show that neuronal synchronization predicts which sensory input is processed and how efficient it is transmitted to postsynaptic target neurons during sensory-motor integration. Four lines of evidence are presented supporting the hypothesis that rhythmic neuronal synchronization, also called neuronal coherence, underlies effective and selective neuronal communication. (1) Findings from intracellular recordings strongly suggest that postsynaptic neurons are particularly sensitive to synaptic input that is synchronized in the gamma-frequency (30-90 Hz) range. (2) Neurophysiological studies in awake animals revealed enhanced rhythmic synchronization among neurons encoding task-relevant information. (3) The trial-by-trial variation in the precision of neuronal synchronization predicts part of the trial-by-trial variation in the speed of visuo-motor integration. (4) The planning and selection of specific movements can be predicted by the strength of coherent oscillations among local neuronal groups in frontal and parietal cortex. Thus, neuronal coherence appears as a neuronal substrate of an effective neuronal communication structure that dynamically links neurons into functional groups processing task-relevant information and selecting appropriate actions during attention and effective sensory-motor integration.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The encoding of salience or precision can also be understood in terms of synchronous gain and fast oscillatory dynamics associated with binding, attention and dynamic coordination.
“As noted above, the encoding of salience or precision can also be understood in terms of synchronous gain [30] and fast (oscillatory) dynamics associated with binding, attention and dynamic coordination [4,5].”
From Cerebral hierarchies: predictive processing, precision and the pulvinar (2015) · cites this paper as [4]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 124 · Cited by 156
- Authors
- Womelsdorf, T., & Fries, P.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Womelsdorf, Thilo
- Venue
- Journal of Physiology-Paris
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-10
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 182-193
- ISSN
- 0928-4257 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2024415031
- Cited by
- 156
- References
- 124
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 2.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Physiology-Paris (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
- Keywords
- neuronal synchronization, selective attention, sensorimotor integration, gamma oscillations, visual-motor integration, motor planning, frontal cortex, parietal cortex, trial-to-trial variability, neural communication
- MeSH terms
- Afferent Pathways, Animals, Attention, Cognition, Cortical Synchronization, Efferent Pathways, Humans, Neurons, Wakefulness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review