Cited by 725Neural dynamics and brain functionMultisensory perception and integrationNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Attention modulates synchronized neuronal firing in primate somatosensory cortex

Steinmetz, P. N., Roy, A., Fitzgerald, P. J., Hsiao, S. S., Johnson, K. O., Niebur, E.·2000·Nature

Abstract

A potentially powerful information processing strategy in the brain is to take advantage of the temporal structure of neuronal spike trains. An increase in synchrony within the neural representation of an object or location increases the efficacy of that neural representation at the next synaptic stage in the brain; thus, increasing synchrony is a candidate for the neural correlate of attentional selection. We investigated the synchronous firing of pairs of neurons in the secondary somatosensory cortex (SII) of three monkeys trained to switch attention between a visual task and a tactile discrimination task. We found that most neuron pairs in SII cortex fired synchronously and, furthermore, that the degree of synchrony was affected by the monkey's attentional state. In the monkey performing the most difficult task, 35% of neuron pairs that fired synchronously changed their degree of synchrony when the monkey switched attention between the tactile and visual tasks. Synchrony increased in 80% and decreased in 20% of neuron pairs affected by attention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/35004588

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Synchronization of firing across the cortical column is commonly observed during decision-making and is attributed to top-down feedback regulation.

    “Such synchronization of firing across the cortical column is commonly observed (32) during decision-making that is attributed to top–down feedback regulation (33, 34) that influences experience-derived predictions (10), establishment of attentional state (35) and working memory (36).”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 29 · Cited by 725

Authors
Steinmetz, P. N., Roy, A., Fitzgerald, P. J., Hsiao, S. S., Johnson, K. O., & Niebur, E.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Niebur, E.
Venue
Nature
Published
2000-03
Volume
404
Issue
6774
Pages
187-190
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2073512103
Cited by
725
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 29
FWCI
22.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
attention, neuronal synchronization, secondary somatosensory cortex, spike train synchrony, selective attention, tactile discrimination, visual attention, neural correlates of attention
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Attention, Cortical Synchronization, Macaca mulatta, Male, Neurons, Somatosensory Cortex, Touch, Visual Perception

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