Cited by 76Neural dynamics and brain functionNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Binding by random bursts: a computational model of cognitive control

Open access
Verguts, Tom·2017·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

A neural synchrony model of cognitive control is proposed. It construes cognitive control as a higher-level action to synchronize lower-level brain areas. Here, a controller prefrontal area (medial frontal cortex) can synchronize two cortical processing areas. The synchrony is achieved by a random theta frequency-locked neural burst sent to both areas. The choice of areas that receive this burst is determined by lateral frontal cortex. As a result of this synchrony, communication between the two areas becomes more efficient. The model is tested on the classical Stroop cognitive control task, and its operation is explored in several simulations. Both reactive and proactive controls are implemented via theta power modulation. Increasing theta power improves behavioral performance; furthermore, via theta–gamma phase–amplitude coupling, theta also increases gamma frequency power and synchrony in posterior processing areas. Thus, the model solves a central computational problem for cognitive control (how to allow rapid communication between arbitrary brain areas), while making rich contact with behavioral and neurophysiological data.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/jocn_a_01117

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cohen, M. X. (2014b). Analyzing neural time series data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Verguts, T.
Affiliations
Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Verguts, Tom
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Published
2017-06-01
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
1103-1118
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2594337449
Cited by
76
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5
FWCI
4.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • University College London
  • Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • Universiteit Gent
  • Vlaamse regering
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
cognitive control, neuronal synchronization, theta oscillations, theta-gamma phase-amplitude coupling, medial frontal cortex, lateral frontal cortex, Stroop task, proactive control, reactive control, interregional communication, computational model of cognition
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Theoretical, Theta Rhythm, Neural Networks, Computer, Prefrontal Cortex, Executive Function

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