The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Spontaneous Neural Oscillations Bias Perception by Modulating Baseline Excitability
Open accessAbstract
The brain exhibits organized fluctuations of neural activity, even in the absence of tasks or sensory input. A prominent type of such spontaneous activity is the alpha rhythm, which influences perception and interacts with other ongoing neural activity. It is currently hypothesized that states of decreased prestimulus α oscillations indicate enhanced neural excitability, resulting in improved perceptual acuity. Nevertheless, it remains debated how changes in excitability manifest at the behavioral level in perceptual tasks. We addressed this issue by comparing two alternative models describing the effect of spontaneous α power on signal detection. The first model assumes that decreased α power increases baseline excitability, amplifying the response to both signal and noise, predicting a liberal detection criterion with no effect on sensitivity. The second model predicts that decreased α power increases the trial-by-trial precision of the sensory response, resulting in improved sensitivity. We tested these models in two EEG experiments in humans where we analyzed the effects of prestimulus α power on visual detection and discrimination using a signal detection framework. Both experiments provide strong evidence that decreased α power reflects a more liberal detection criterion, rather than improved sensitivity, consistent with the baseline model. In other words, when the task requires detecting stimulus presence versus absence, reduced α oscillations make observers more likely to report the stimulus regardless of actual stimulus presence. Contrary to previous interpretations, these results suggest that states of decreased α oscillations increase the global baseline excitability of sensory systems without affecting perceptual acuity. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Spontaneous fluctuations of brain activity explain why a faint sensory stimulus is sometimes perceived and sometimes not. The prevailing view is that heightened neural excitability, indexed by decreased α oscillations, promotes better perceptual performance. Here, we provide evidence that heightened neural excitability instead reflects a state of biased perception, during which a person is more likely to see a stimulus, whether or not it is actually present. Therefore, we propose that changes in neural excitability leave the precision of sensory processing unaffected. These results establish the link between spontaneous brain activity and the variability in human perception.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004) · Journal of Neuroscience Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009 · Cited by 24,371
Brainard, D. H. (1997) · Spatial Vision · doi:10.1163/156856897x00357 · Cited by 19,702
The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies
Pelli, D. G. (1997) · Spatial Vision · doi:10.1163/156856897x00366 · Cited by 11,098
(1966) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10,293
Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data
Maris, E., & Oostenveld, R. (2007) · Journal of Neuroscience Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024 · Cited by 8,496
Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis
Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/pbr.16.2.225 · Cited by 3,688
Calculation of signal detection theory measures
Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03207704 · Cited by 2,673
Quest: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method
Watson, A. B., & Pelli, D. G. (1983) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03202828 · Cited by 2,410
Foxe, J. J., & Snyder, A. C. (2011) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00154 · Cited by 1,558
Stimulus Specificity of Phase-Locked and Non-Phase-Locked 40 Hz Visual Responses in Human
Tallon-Baudry, C., Bertrand, O., Delpuech, C., & Pernier, J. (1996) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.16-13-04240.1996 · Cited by 1,534
Cited by
The threshold for conscious report: Signal loss and response bias in visual and frontal cortex
van Vugt, B., Dagnino, B., Vartak, D., Safaai, H., Panzeri, S., Dehaene, S., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aar7186 · Cited by 394
Neuromodulation of brain state and behavior
McCormick, D. A., Nestvogel, D. B., & He, B. J. (2020) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-100219-105424 · Cited by 303
Behavior needs neural variability
Waschke, L., Kloosterman, N. A., Obleser, J., & Garrett, D. D. (2021) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2021.01.023 · Cited by 308
Van Diepen, R. M., Foxe, J. J., & Mazaheri, A. (2019) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.03.015 · Cited by 293
Heart–brain interactions shape somatosensory perception and evoked potentials
Al, E., Iliopoulos, F., Forschack, N., Nierhaus, T., Grund, M., Motyka, P., Gaebler, M., Nikulin, V. V., & Villringer, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1915629117 · Cited by 276
Metadata
- Authors
- Iemi, L., Chaumon, M., Crouzet, S. M., & Busch, N. A.
- Venue
- The Journal of Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Society for Neuroscience
- Published
- 2016-12-19
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 807-819
- ISSN
- 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-2401
- OpenAlex
- W2567675234
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 72
- FWCI
- 13.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Spontaneous Neural Oscillations Bias Perception by Modulating Baseline Excitability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1523/jneurosci.1432-16.2016
- The paper
- Iemi, L., Chaumon, M., Crouzet, S. M., & Busch, N. A. (2017). Spontaneous Neural Oscillations Bias Perception by Modulating Baseline Excitability. The Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.1432-16.2016
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.