Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
TechSights

Under the Mind's Hood: What We Have Learned by Watching the Brain at Work

Anna Christina Nobre and Freek van Ede
Journal of Neuroscience 2 January 2020, 40 (1) 89-100; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0742-19.2019
Anna Christina Nobre
1Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7JX, United Kingdom, and
2Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Anna Christina Nobre
Freek van Ede
1Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7JX, United Kingdom, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Freek van Ede
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Imagine you were asked to investigate the workings of an engine, but to do so without ever opening the hood. Now imagine the engine fueled the human mind. This is the challenge faced by cognitive neuroscientists worldwide aiming to understand the neural bases of our psychological functions. Luckily, human ingenuity comes to the rescue. Around the same time as the Society for Neuroscience was being established in the 1960s, the first tools for measuring the human brain at work were becoming available. Noninvasive human brain imaging and neurophysiology have continued developing at a relentless pace ever since. In this 50 year anniversary, we reflect on how these methods have been changing our understanding of how brain supports mind.

  • Human brain imaging
  • Human neurophysiology
  • Historical overview
  • Selective attention
  • Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)
  • Electroencephalograhy (EEG)

Introduction

The human mind — what could hold more mystery and fascination? For millennia, humans have puzzled and pondered over its origins and workings; but only over the last 50 years or so, have scientists had the experimental tools to go under the hood to measure its organ at work. For a timeline of key methodological developments, see Figure 1.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Timeline of key methodological developments in the history of going under the mind's hood. Timings are approximate, appreciating that many of the listed developments spanned several years, or involved relatively gradual transitions rather than abrupt events with a clearly marked onset and offset. Selected representative references for the listed events (ordered by their associated number in the schematic) are as follows: (1) Donders, 1869. (2) Broca, 1861; Wernicke, 1874. (3) Caton, 1875. (4) Mosso, 1881. (5) Roy and Sherrington, 1890. (6) Fulton, 1928. (7) Berger, 1929. (8) Adrian and Matthews, 1934. (9) Davis, 1939; Dawson, 1954; Galambos and Sheatz, 1962. (10) Landau et al., 1955. (11) Ingvar and Risberg, 1965. (12) Walter et al., 1964; Sutton et al., 1965. (13) Bloch, 1946; Purcell et al., 1946; Lauterbur, 1973; Mansfield, 1977. (14) Cohen, 1972. (15) Frackowiak et al., 1980; Raichle et al., 1983. (16) Pfurtscheller and Aranibar, 1979; Pfurtscheller and Lopes da Silva, 1999; Tallon-Baudry and Bertrand, 1999. (17) Ogawa et al., 1990, 1992; Kwong et al., 1992; Bandettini et al., 1992. (18) Friston et al., 1994; Smith et al., 2004; Oostenveld et al., 2011. (19) Biswal et al., 1995; Raichle et al., 2001; Fox et al., 2005. (20) Haxby et al., 2001; Kamitani and Tong, 2005; Kriegeskorte et al., 2006. (21) Boto et al., 2018.

The foundations for our understanding of how mental functions are organized in the human brain come from neuropsychological studies based on observations of behavioral impairments and dissociations following naturally occurring brain lesions (e.g., Broca, 1861; Harlow, 1868; Wernicke, 1874; Loeb, 1885). None should deny the importance of human lesion studies in identifying the functional elements of the human mind as well as their interrelations and causal reliance upon specialized brain areas (e.g., Scoville and Milner, 1957). Yet, the method's limitations for investigating the workings of the brain are clear.

A mechanistic understanding requires looking inside and measuring activity unfolding in the human brain. Two complementary approaches were pursued in parallel, based on recording brain activity directly using neurophysiology and on imaging metabolic consequences of brain activity through hemodynamic markers. In each case, the scientific roots stretch back to the late 1800s, but the practical methods for investigating the brain mechanisms supporting mental functions noninvasively only started to become available in the 1960s, with the development of event-related potentials (ERPs) enabling cognitive neurophysiology (Walter et al., 1964; Sutton et al., 1965) and of methods to image cerebral blood flow kicking off brain imaging (Lassen et al., 1963). Figure 2 shows some of the earliest examples of each. Thus, the founding of the Society for Neuroscience also coincided with the rise of cognitive neuroscience as we know it today (see also Fig. 1).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

The first glimpses of cognition at work. Early results from (A) imaging and (B) recording human brain activity. A, Patterns of cerebral blood flow measured using a scintillation detector placed next to a participant's head after injection of a radioactive isotope to detect its passage through the cortex. On the color scale: Green represents the mean flow rate. Shades of blue represent up to 20% decreases from mean. Shades from yellow to red represent up to 20% above mean flow rates. Images are maps from individual participants. (1) At rest, the brain showed high levels of activity in frontal cortex. (2) While following a moving object with the eyes, blood flow increased relative to the resting baseline in visual association cortex and in the region of the frontal and supplementary eye fields. (3) While listening to spoken words, activity increased in auditory cortex. (4) While moving the mouth and repeatedly counting to 20, activity increased in the mouth area of motor cortex, supplementary motor area, and auditory cortex. Adapted with permission from Lassen et al. (1978). Copyright © (1978) Scientific American, a division of Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved. B, Averaged event-related responses elicited by sound stimuli in each of 5 participants (1–5) when sound stimuli were fully predictable (certain; solid line) versus when the modality of the same sound stimuli was uncertain (dashed line). In the uncertain condition, sound stimuli occurred on one-third of trials, and visual stimuli occurred on two-thirds of trials. The most dramatic differences occurred in the late positive deflection with a peak latency of ∼300 ms. Positive voltage values are plotted downward. Adapted from Sutton et al., 1965. Reprinted with permission from AAAS.

Since then, noninvasive human neurophysiology and brain imaging have played major roles in changing and refining our conceptualization of how mind sits in brain. They have moved us away from the earlier view that psychological functions are localized to brain areas that can be combined in series, and instead ushered us toward a network-based organization in which architecture and dynamics play critical roles in prioritizing, routing, and integrating information. Undoubtedly, our current understanding is incomplete, but shaking off the naive, common-sense assumptions and accepting that the fabric of mind may be nonintuitive are an essential first step.

In what follows, we reflect on some of the breakthroughs and insights gained from 50 years of watching the brain at work using noninvasive brain measurements in healthy human volunteers. Inevitably, some relevant tools and developments for studying the human mind fall outside the chosen scope. These include the complementary interference-based stimulation methods for probing causal links between brain activity and behavior (e.g., Barker et al., 1985; Thut and Miniussi, 2009; Herrmann et al., 2013), as well as invasive intracranial human EEG measurements and brain stimulation that can be performed in the context of clinical interventions and monitoring (e.g., Jasper and Penfield, 1949; Lachaux et al., 2003; Chang et al., 2010).

Brain imaging

Over the last five decades, brain imaging has become the dominant approach for measuring human brain activity. Arguably, its increasing power and granularity to dissect the structural and functional organization of the human brain are major contributors to the success and reach of neuroscience in our society today. The rise and influence of functional brain imaging, especially of the more affordable MRI-based methods introduced in the early 1990s, have been meteoric.

The research impact of brain imaging soon outstripped that of human neurophysiology, which had heretofore been more advanced in its application to understanding human cognition. One interesting question is why imaging gained precedence. An obvious advantage is the intrinsic appeal of an image that maps the loci of activity in the brain compared with the complex waveforms of voltage traces offered by neurophysiology. Another wise move on the part of imagers was co-opting the expertise of experimental psychologists to work alongside those developing the methods to design studies to isolate psychological functions so that their neural correlates could be inferred (e.g., Petersen et al., 1988; Posner et al., 1988). Initial experimental designs used subtraction-based approaches building on mental-chronometry methods (Donders, 1869; Posner, 1978); two conditions equated for all but the critical cognitive operation of interest were compared to estimate the duration, or in the case of brain imaging, the activation, related to that operation. Although it is easy to criticize the approach in hindsight, and to question the validity of the implicit assumption of pure insertion that cognitive operations add linearly, it provided a foothold into the slippery landscape of psychological functions and paved the way for other, more powerful types of designs. But the clinching factor driving the success of imaging studies may be the increasing sophistication of data-analysis methods. Brain-imaging data brought many difficulties that required analytical ingenuity to overcome, such as how to reconstruct images, align them across measurements, account for individual differences in structural and functional anatomy, derive functions to link neural events to their protracted hemodynamic signals, and apportion variability in brain signals to experimental variables. Such challenges attracted significant analytic talent into the field, which resulted in new and ever better ways to interrogate functional brain signals.

The introduction and free dissemination of statistical methods with which to analyze time series of signal fluctuations on a voxel-by-voxel basis as a function of experimental variables (e.g., Friston et al., 1994; Smith et al., 2004) enabled researchers to map out responses of different brain areas to specific psychological functions, but also to capture covariations in activity across brain areas (functional and effective connectivity). Functional measurements taken across brain areas revealed cooperation and influences among areas during a task (e.g., Büchel and Friston, 1997). They also revealed the intrinsic network organization of the brain, with high levels of covariation in areas that are closely functionally related even at rest, when participants have no specific task to perform (Biswal et al., 1995; Raichle et al., 2001; Fox et al., 2005; Damoiseaux et al., 2006). Furthermore, the ability to specify the changing experimental parameters on a trial-by-trial basis provided important mechanistic information about which brain changes impact behavioral performance in a given domain (e.g., Pessoa et al., 2002; Weissman et al., 2006). It also enabled researchers to apply computational modeling to reveal whether and which brain areas are sensitive to latent parameters hypothesized to guide performance (Friston and Dolan, 2010). Multivariate methods building on these foundations were further able to characterize patterns of activations across populations of voxels (e.g., Kamitani and Tong, 2005; Haynes and Rees, 2006), thus indexing the informational content of the processing within an area or network (Kriegeskorte et al., 2006). For example, whereas signals in individual voxels of a typical fMRI study lack the sensitivity to distinguish among different object shapes being viewed, these can be readily decoded from the pattern of activation strengths across sets of voxels (Haxby et al., 2001; Stokes et al., 2009).

Advances

Detailing all the advances brain imaging has brought to the understanding human cognition would be beyond any reasonable review article. We therefore confine ourselves to highlighting some of the conceptual breakthroughs in our own field of inquiry, selective attention, acknowledging that our choices are biased by our own experience and interests. We will follow a similar approach in subsequent sections highlighting advances based on neurophysiological recording approaches.

PET scanning (Corbetta et al., 1993; Nobre et al., 1997) and later fMRI (Gitelman et al., 1999; Kastner et al., 1999; Corbetta et al., 2000; Hopfinger et al., 2000) vindicated the notion that a large-scale network of brain areas supports the control of visual spatial attention (Mesulam, 1981, 1990). The results played a major role in leaving behind phrenological views and promoting the importance of understanding network-level computations both in regard to attention and more generally in the control of cognition. The network of brain areas involved in controlling attention overlapped significantly with that controlling oculomotor functions (Nobre et al., 1997, 2000; Corbetta et al., 1998), helping highlight the close link between cognitive functions and their sensorimotor building blocks and prompting further investigation of the details of the functional links (e.g., Engbert, 2006; Awh et al., 2006; Ikkai and Curtis, 2011; van Ede et al., 2019a). The increasing spatial resolution of imaging methods combined with retinotopic mapping have helped delineate various parietal and premotor/prefrontal areas that may be relevant to attention control, and promoted further investigations of their causal involvement using transcranial stimulation methods (e.g., Silver et al., 2005; Konen and Kastner, 2008; Szczepanski and Kastner, 2013; Scolari et al., 2015). Studies investigating the consequences of attention modulation showed that many sensory and high-level brain areas were affected by visual-spatial and other forms of attention (Corbetta et al., 1990; Kastner et al., 1998). Rather than locating the site for attention modulation, the findings suggested that attention might affect multiple types and levels of processing. Modulation was also observed in subcortical areas, including thalamic nuclei thought to play early relay functions in visual processing (O'Connor et al., 2002), thus prompting invasive single-unit studies to reassess modulation of thalamic regions by attention (McAlonan et al., 2006, 2008; Wurtz et al., 2011). Imaging studies analyzing functional interactions among brain regions, and subsequent studies combining brain stimulation with imaging, confirmed the top-down influence of parietal and frontal regions on sensory processing (Buchel and Friston, 1997; Moore and Fallah, 2004; Ruff et al., 2006).

MRI studies using multivariate analyses (Haxby et al., 2001; Kamitani and Tong, 2005; Haynes and Rees, 2006; Kriegeskorte et al., 2006) also revealed preactivation of sensory content of task-relevant targets during the anticipatory period (Stokes et al., 2009), in line with findings from single units in monkeys (Chelazzi et al., 1993) and with the influential biased-competition theory of visual attention (Desimone and Duncan, 1995). Interestingly, studies using multivariate approaches further revealed that anticipatory delay activity need not merely reflect a veridical representation of the target template, but instead upregulates the most useful information to guide subsequent performance (Serences et al., 2009), which can consist of systematic distortions of the original template (Scolari and Serences, 2010).

Overall, brain imaging has helped shape our textbook understanding of attention in the human brain (Nobre and Kastner, 2014) and provide a bridge to the studies investigating systems-level and cellular mechanisms in animal models (e.g., Reynolds and Chelazzi, 2004; Reynolds and Heeger, 2009; Fries, 2015; Jonikaitis and Moore, 2019).

Limitations

The progress made in imaging technology and analysis is undeniable, yet brain imaging on its own is insufficient for understanding the neural basis of adaptive cognition. In some cases, it can even be misleading. Activation maps hide nuances and limitations. They feel immediate and conjure intuitive interpretations, but they are based on indirect markers of neuronal activity. Although the link between brain activity and circulation mediated by metabolic demands is well established (Roy and Sherrington, 1890), the precise linking functions are still being investigated (Raichle and Mintun, 2006). Imaging signals may be systematically biased in ways we are yet to appreciate.

In addition to being indirect, hemodynamic measurements are orders of magnitude slower than their neuronal-activity counterparts. Their timescale, in seconds, is ill suited to investigate psychological processes, many of which unfold over tens to hundreds of milliseconds. The coarse temporal resolution makes it difficult to interpret changes in activation patterns. For example, greater activation in a region could reflect either stronger or lengthier engagement of neuronal populations. More problematically, taking modulations of brain activity in an area at face value can misguide interpretation. If we heed the lesson that neural processes occur within functionally interconnected networks of brain areas, it becomes counterproductive to infer the functional specialization of one individual brain area without high temporal resolution. Through the temporally blurred lens of brain imaging, it can be difficult to distinguish activations resulting from computations within a given area from those initiated in other areas that are fed forward from upstream regions or fed back from downstream regions through network connectivity. Thus, ironically perhaps, brain imaging is most often used to reveal something it cannot, the functional specialization of a given brain area. Imaging studies routinely draw such inferences; but without corroborating evidence from complementary methods with high temporal resolution, it is problematic to attribute the origin of a neural effect to the site of hemodynamic modulation.

For example, in imaging studies, attention-related modulation of visual processing in striate cortex (Kastner et al., 1998; Tootell et al., 1998; Brefczynski and DeYoe, 1999) and lateral geniculate nucleus (O'Connor et al., 2002) could be interpreted as reflecting modulation at very early stages in the feedforward “sweep” of visual processing. However, human neurophysiological studies using similar task designs mostly showed effects of spatial attention starting only later in time, therefore sparing the initial visual potential related to the first feedforward sweep of striate activity (e.g., Clark and Hillyard, 1996; Martínez et al., 1999). These findings suggest that modulation of striate cortex and thalamus in fMRI studies could instead result from reentrant feedback carrying attention-modulated signals from downstream areas (Lamme and Roelfsema, 2000). Resolving such inconsistencies requires careful studies combining both brain imaging and neurophysiological methods in the same task and applying invasive methods with higher combined spatial and temporal resolution.

Studies relying on invasive intracranial recordings in humans illustrate the occurrence of late, reentrant modulation in early sensory regions, which might yield misleading patterns of hemodynamic activations. In a feature-based attention task, participants viewed randomly interleaved red or green words in the center of the screen, and had to follow the narrative of the words in one (attended) color while ignoring words in the other stream (Nobre et al., 1998). Recordings from the posterior fusiform gyrus showed characteristic responses to word stimuli ∼200 ms (Nobre et al., 1994). These were unaffected by the attention manipulation, but strong attention-related modulations occurred much later (after 350 ms), possibly reflecting feedback from different degrees of semantic and contextual integration from attended versus ignored words. Interestingly, in contrast to the intracranial neurophysiological studies showing that early responses in this region are unaffected by lexical or semantic factors (Nobre et al., 1994; Nobre and McCarthy, 1995), fMRI studies have suggested this brain area is sensitive to lexical and contextual semantic factors (e.g., Price and Devlin, 2003; Hauk et al., 2008). An alternative possibility is that imaging-related modulations come from downstream regions as a result of attention or later stages of semantic or contextual analysis.

Intracranial recordings during a contextual-cueing task offer another example of late attention-related modulation in early visual areas (Olson et al., 2001). Identifying a designated target stimulus in a visual-search array is facilitated by repetition of the configuration of distractors (Chun and Jiang, 1998). Implicit long-term memory for the configuration of distractors is proposed to guide spatial attention to the target location to enhance performance (Chun, 2000). Intracranial recordings from visual areas showed late modulation by memory for distractor configurations. The first potentials are unaffected, suggesting modulation as a result of reentrant feedback from later processing stages. Without such qualifications, fMRI findings that activations are modulated in early visual areas (Pollmann and Manginelli, 2010) might be incorrectly interpreted as suggesting that contextual memory influences the earliest stages of visual cortical processing in these tasks.

Human neurophysiology

Despite its earlier take-off as a method to probe the workings of cognitive functions, noninvasive human neurophysiology later took the backseat position. Recent technical and analytical advances, however, are unleashing the method's full power to investigate information processing and dynamics within human brain networks. Human neurophysiology is once again stepping back into the driver's seat, as researchers increasingly recognize the importance of complementing brain imaging with direct, time-resolved measures of human brain activity to understand brain mechanisms of cognition.

ERPs

Modern human cognitive neurophysiology took off in the 1960s when methods for averaging EEG traces (Garceau and Davis, 1934; Davis, 1939; Dawson, 1954; Galambos and Sheatz, 1962) made it possible to extract the small yet consistent voltage signals reflecting neural processing systematically related to sensory or cognitive events from the larger ongoing raw voltage fluctuations. Using this method, researchers identified ERPs that were sensitive to cognitive factors during task performance. Pioneering examples were the contingent-negative variation, a large negative voltage buildup following a stimulus that signaled an upcoming behavioral target (Walter et al., 1964), and the late positive component, which varied with the degree of uncertainty about the identity of a target (Sutton et al., 1965) (see Fig. 2B).

The ERP method was the first to enable the scientific and noninvasive investigation of cognitive functions in the human brain. The spatial resolution of ERPs is limited by the spatial and temporal summation of voltage signals in the brain and by the ill-posed problem of deriving the intracranial sources from their projection onto the scalp surface (Helmholtz, 1853). Nevertheless, the potentials provide a rich signal of controlled observable variability (Donchin et al., 1978), which can be defined by their latency, amplitude, voltage topography over the scalp, and functional modulation by experimental variables (Allison et al., 1986; Rugg and Coles, 1995). By recording ERPs, it became possible to measure whether and when the human brain was sensitive to a particular type of information or manipulation, and to compare the patterns of responses elicited by different stimuli or under different conditions.

Advances

The use of ERPs brought many conceptual advances to attention research (Luck et al., 2000; Nobre and Silvert, 2008; Woodman, 2010; Eimer, 2014), and it is noteworthy that ERP reports of attention modulation of sensory processing preceded those using invasive cellular recordings in nonhuman primates (Moran and Desimone, 1985) and noninvasive human brain imaging (Corbetta et al., 1990; Tootell et al., 1995). For example, modulation of sensory potentials during spatial selective-attention tasks (Hillyard et al., 1973; van Voorhis and Hillyard, 1977) broke the impasse on the longstanding debate between “early” and “late” attention, relating to the exact processing stage at which attention operates to prioritize relevant from irrelevant information, either at the level of simple features during perception (early) or only after full stimulus processing through semantic analysis (late). Functional dissociations between modulation of different sensory potentials indicated the existence of multiple modulatory sites (Mangun and Hillyard, 1991; Luck et al., 1994, 1995), negating the stubborn idea of only one bottleneck for information processing and, accordingly, only one site for attention modulation in the human brain (Broadbent, 1958). Studies using word stimuli further showed that modulation could include lexical and semantic content (McCarthy and Nobre, 1993; Bentin et al., 1995), challenging views about the automatic nature of such stages of processing (Deutsch and Deutsch, 1963). ERP studies also clearly showed early sensory modulatory effects of object-based (Valdes-Sosa et al., 1998), feature-based (Hansen and Hillyard, 1983; Leonards et al., 2003; Hopf et al., 2004), and temporal (Doherty et al., 2005) attention, thus helping the field break away from the notion of a privileged type of unit for attention selection (see Nobre and Silvert, 2008; Nobre and Kastner, 2014; Nobre, 2018).

Limitations

However, the traditional approach to analyzing ERPs dismisses many fundamental sources of variability that are essential for deriving a better, mechanistic understanding of human brain function. Averaging EEG traces into an ERP waveform eliminates trial-by trial variability, thereby greatly reducing the sensitivity to identify the stages of processing that impact behavioral performance. Averaging raw (time-domain) signals also collapses the spectral richness in the EEG signal, recognized from its earliest recordings (Berger, 1929). Frequency-specific patterns in the EEG, whether they reflect truly oscillatory phenomena or shorter-lived signatures of network-related activity (van Ede et al., 2018a), may carry specific functional significance, which still requires direct testing. Finally, averaging also eliminates much of the temporal specificity hailed as the hallmark of neurophysiological methods. Temporal summation of processes triggered by events that overlap in time can make it problematic or impossible to individuate them. Temporal variability in the processes triggered by the same event over multiple trials can also lead to distortions in the overall averaged signal and promote misleading interpretations. For example, a lower-amplitude average potential can result from changes in the strength of a process or its temporal variability across trials.

Contemporary human neurophysiology

Noninvasive human neurophysiology is experiencing a revival. Interestingly, many of the advances reinvigorating the method have their origin in the very brain-imaging methods that initially overshadowed it in the first place.

The constant quest for improved spatial resolution accentuated by brain imaging also resulted in substantial hardware refinements for noninvasive human neurophysiology. The introduction of MEG has greatly sharpened the spatial resolution of human recording methods (Cohen, 1972; Hari and Salmelin, 1997), and successful efforts are underway to measure magnetic fields generated in the brain with greater flexibility and even greater spatial granularity and signal-to-noise ratio (Boto et al., 2018).

But as with imaging, the clinching factor in improving neurophysiology studies has been the innovation in the concepts and tools used for signal analysis. Many of these are related to, and inspired by, analytical advances introduced for brain-imaging methods. For example, by drawing on advances in imaging, methods for localizing the brain sources of extracranial M/EEG signals in a more distributed, brainwide fashion (e.g., beamforming) (van Veen and Buckley, 1988) have supplemented more traditional dipole-based models (Hämäläinen and Hari, 2002). In tandem, statistical approaches for evaluating the full data space, such as cluster-based permutation approaches (Maris and Oostenveld, 2007), have been adapted and applied to neurophysiological signals. Through such approaches, we have also come to appreciate more fully the richness of neurophysiological data as a key strength of the method. This richness provides a better means to assess “physiological plausibility,” and provides relevant complementary information to p values (van Ede and Maris, 2016).

Furthermore, by breaking away from the averaging functions that provided the foundation for initial ERP breakthroughs and embracing the variability in the raw signal, it has become possible to measure signals in their full spectral richness, on a trial-by-trial basis, and to individuate informational content about temporally overlapping events, with high temporal fidelity, and taking temporal variability into account.

Regaining spectral richness

A key rationale of the ERP approach is that, by repeating the same condition across many trials, we average away the “background” states that obscure the response within the single trials, to reveal the waveform that is common across trials (Fig. 3A, left column). The approach assumes that the raw, ongoing activity carries no relevant information-processing content and that it is essentially a nuisance factor to be eliminated.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Schematics of innovations in contemporary neurophysiology. A, Raw M/EEG traces (blue) and their spectral amplitudes (red) provide complementary windows into cognitive modulations of neural activity. Spectral analyses enabled researchers to regain “background” states, by enabling the states to be analyzed just like ERP components (i.e., relative to cognitive events and with the increased sensitivity brought by trial averaging). For a relevant example, see Pfurtscheller and Lopes da Silva (1999). B, When multiple stimuli are presented in close temporal proximity, analyses of response magnitudes (ERP and spectral) are complicated by response summation (left column). Decoding analyses that focus on the unique information of the distinct events enable response individuation (right column). For a relevant example, see van Ede et al. (2018b). C, Sustained patterns in trial-average dynamics of, for example, spectral amplitude (as depicted) may reflect the aggregation of many transient burst events at the level of single trials (left column). For a relevant example, see Lundqvist et al. (2016). Accordingly, modulations in average amplitude may reflect a number of distinct changes in the underlying single-trial dynamics (right column). For a relevant example, see Shin et al. (2017).

However, even the earliest EEG recordings clearly suggested the presence of endogenous brain states that are functionally relevant. At rest, the brain was observed to display prevalent patterns of rhythmic activity, such as in the alpha (∼10 Hz) and beta (∼20 Hz) frequencies, which varied systematically with the functional state and neurological condition of the individual (Berger, 1929). Berger's initial observations, and the later realization of resting-state networks using brain imaging (Raichle et al., 2001; Fox et al., 2005; Damoiseaux et al., 2006), suggest that human cognition and behavior are not a reaction to external stimulation, but an interaction between external stimulation and internal brain states. Capturing and characterizing these internal states, and understanding their relation to the processing of external inputs, could therefore be fundamental for understanding psychological functions.

From the beginning, these rhythms were shown to vary with mental acts. For example, in addition to the strong effects of closing versus opening the eyes on inducing and suppressing the alpha rhythm, engaging in an attention-consuming act, like performing a difficult mental arithmetic calculation, also strongly diminished the alpha rhythm (Berger, 1929; Adrian and Matthews, 1934). Thus, the ERP method dismissed as “noise” internal functional brain states carrying characteristic spectral signatures. It is now widely recognized that such brain states can provide complementary windows into neural and cognitive computations (e.g., Hari and Salmelin, 1997; Klimesch, 1999; Pfurtscheller and Lopes da Silva, 1999; Siegel et al., 2012).

The reclaiming of the spectral dimension took off with the application of time-resolved spectral analyses that allowed researchers to analyze spectral modulations in an ERP-like fashion (Fig. 3A, right column) (Pfurtscheller and Aranibar, 1979; Pfurtscheller and Lopes da Silva, 1999) and construct comprehensive time-frequency plots (e.g., Tallon-Baudry and Bertrand, 1999). Complementing these developments, methods have been developed to derive the spectral characteristics of brain activity empirically (Huang et al., 1998, 2016). These methods sidestep some of the problematic consequences that occur when brain signals violate assumptions that are inherent in conventional Fourier-based methods.

In human attention research, a prominent example of the utility of spectral analyses comes from studies linking ongoing alpha oscillations to selective attention and perception. Rather than dismissing alpha oscillations as a background state, Foxe et al. (1998) and Worden et al. (2000) demonstrated that anticipatory states of attention are associated with a relative attenuation of alpha oscillations in brain areas that code for the anticipated stimulus. We and others have subsequently shown that such alpha attenuation also tunes in to relevant moments in time (Rohenkohl and Nobre, 2011; van Ede et al., 2011; Zanto et al., 2011; Heideman et al., 2018) and that such states enhance sensory processing (e.g., Hanslmayr et al., 2007; van Dijk et al., 2008; Romei et al., 2010; Gould et al., 2011; van Ede et al., 2018b) and upregulate firing rates in the underlying populations (Haegens et al., 2011). On these bases, relative alpha attenuation in task-relevant sensory brain areas has been proposed to serve a key “gating mechanism” of the human brain (e.g., Jensen and Mazaheri, 2010; Foxe and Snyder, 2011), including for gating perceptual representations within working memory (Wallis et al., 2015; van Ede, 2018).

The analyses of spectral states have also helped extract and characterize “resting-state” networks from human neurophysiological recordings, by quantifying common amplitude fluctuations across brain regions (Mantini et al., 2007; Brookes et al., 2011; Hipp et al., 2012). This has enabled a bridge to canonical networks observed in imaging (Raichle et al., 2001; Fox et al., 2005; Damoiseaux et al., 2006) while also enabling the study of the dynamics of these networks at cognitively relevant time scales (de Pasquale et al., 2010; Baker et al., 2014; Florin and Baillet, 2015; Vidaurre et al., 2018). Though it is still early days, this has already yielded new perspectives on the transient nature of network activations, which inevitably remains hidden in imaging methods, and on the role of such network dynamics in perception and attention (e.g., Weisz et al., 2014; Astle et al., 2015).

These examples showcase how the incorporation of the spectral dimension is having a major impact on the field. It has afforded a new complementary dimension within the same signal we have always collected. The rich nature of this dimension makes it possible to characterize neural states in time and frequency, and to bridge physiological and imaging studies of human brain activity.

Tracking informational content

Machine learning has also found its way to human neurophysiology. Building on earlier applications of multivariate decoding analyses in brain imaging (Haxby et al., 2001; Kamitani and Tong, 2005; Haynes and Rees, 2006; Kriegeskorte et al., 2006), decoding is becoming mainstream in neurophysiological studies of human cognition (e.g., King and Dehaene, 2014; Cichy et al., 2015; Stokes et al., 2015). Unlike conventional analyses of ERPs and spectral modulations that capture response magnitudes, which may relate to changes in processing in many ways, decoding analyses can capture the content-specific information contained in the signal, providing more direct insights into the quality of representation (Kriegeskorte et al., 2006). Using such analyses with human neurophysiology allows the tracking of informational content through time and reveals the dynamic nature of neural coding (Stokes et al., 2013; King and Dehaene, 2014). Initial studies showed that information content in M/EEG measurements may be present earlier than in conventional ERP/Fs (Ramkumar et al., 2013), and a wave of recent studies has started to shed new light on attentional dynamics in perception and memory (e.g., LaRocque et al., 2013; Garcia et al., 2013; Marti et al., 2015; Myers et al., 2015; Foster et al., 2017; Wolff et al., 2017; van Ede et al., 2019b). For example, while it has long been known that anticipation amplifies early visual responses (e.g., the visual P1 and N1 ERP components) (Mangun and Hillyard, 1987, 1991; Luck et al., 1994), up until recently, it had remained unclear whether anticipation also enhances the quality of information linked to stimulus identity within these early brain responses. We recently demonstrated precisely this (van Ede et al., 2018b). Interestingly, the attention-related gain in information was uncorrelated with the amplification of the visual potential in the same time window, suggesting that response amplitude and response information provide complementary windows into attentional operations (for an example of a similar notion in fMRI, see also Kok et al., 2012).

Individuating representations

Decoding analyses also provide a powerful tool to overcome another limitation of conventional analyses of response amplitudes. When multiple items occur together or in rapid succession, the amplitude of the neural response will reflect the aggregate response to the sum of the stimuli (Fig. 3B, left column, bottom). From this summed response, it is notoriously hard to partition the response into the components associated with the individual stimuli. This becomes even more problematic when deciphering the origin of a cognitive modulation that rides on the aggregate response.

Decoding analyses provide ways around this because they individuate items based on their unique representational information, thereby enabling the tracking of multiple representations in time concurrently (Fig. 3B, right column, bottom). We recently used this approach to study how anticipation facilitates the processing of visual targets when these compete with temporally adjacent visual distractors (van Ede et al., 2018b). By decoding stimulus-identity information from the EEG, we were able to individuate both target and distractor codes despite their temporal proximity, and to track the sensory processing of each over time. This revealed that anticipation enhances the quality of the target representation and delays interference from the distractor on the target processing, providing a protective temporal window for high-fidelity target processing. Similar approaches have started to reveal new insights into other dynamic phenomena, such as the attentional blink (Marti and Dehaene, 2017), the matching of mnemonic templates to visual inputs (Myers et al., 2015), multitasking (Marti et al., 2015), and the concerted selection of visual and motor representations from working memory (van Ede et al., 2019b).

Complementing decoding analyses that capitalize on informational content, individuation can also be achieved through frequency tagging (e.g., Brown and Norcia, 1997; Tononi et al., 1998), an approach that dates back to early days of cognitive neurophysiology (Lansing, 1964), while still subject to contemporary developments (Zhigalov et al., 2019). Here, items are presented (tagged) at distinct, separable, frequencies. By titrating the analysis according to the tagged frequencies, it becomes possible to isolate the neural response to the distinct items, and to track the amplitudes of these item-specific responses over time. Such an approach has been used, for example, to track the concurrent focusing of attention at spatially segregated locations (Müller and Hübner, 2002; Müller et al., 2003) or to track the neural dynamics of feature-based attention on spatially overlapping stimuli (Baldauf and Desimone, 2014).

Regaining single-trial dynamics

Recent years have also seen an increased emphasis on the importance of single-trial dynamics. While combining data yields clean and robust signals, it risks two potential fallacies: (1) assuming trialwise variability is noise and (2) treating the average as a prototypical reflection of the underlying dynamics.

Regarding trialwise variability, we have learned that, even within a single experimental condition, neural variability can predict variability in task performance (e.g., van Dijk et al., 2008; Mazaheri et al., 2009; Jones et al., 2010; van Ede et al., 2012; Cravo et al., 2013; Myers et al., 2014). Rather than noise, such fluctuations may reflect spontaneous fluctuations in cognitive state (see also Nienborg and Cumming, 2009). Capturing this variability can give relevant insights into the relation between brain states and cognition, complementing insights derived from analyzing systematic differences across experimental conditions. In addition to variability in the strength of responses, variability may also occur in the temporal cascade of processing. Such variability can smear and dampen ERP amplitudes and may lead to “false dynamics” in cross-temporal decoding analyses (King and Dehaene, 2014) that assume consistent timing of neural processing across trials (Vidaurre et al., 2019). New temporally unconstrained decoding models are on the rise to capture this temporal variability, and these models too can account for variability in behavioral performance (Vidaurre et al., 2019). Such approaches promise to reveal important principles about the time course of neural computations relevant to cognition, helping to arbitrate between proposals suggesting successive stable states of neural processing (e.g., Pascual-Marqui et al., 1995; Khanna et al., 2015) versus a continuous unfolding of dynamic neural activity best captured as a trajectory through state space (e.g., Buonomano and Maass, 2009).

There is also increased appreciation that the trial-averaged response may provide a highly misleading model of the underlying response, or the underlying patterns of activity. For example, the classic “ramp-like” activity in the trial average may reflect the averaging of many “step-like” patterns with jittered timings across trials (Latimer et al., 2015; Stokes and Spaak, 2016). Likewise, sustained patterns in average time-frequency maps of spectral amplitude may reflect the aggregation of many short-lived, isolated “burst events” at the single-trial level, which happen to ring in a particular frequency band (Feingold et al., 2015; Lundqvist et al., 2016; Shin et al., 2017) (Fig. 3C, left column).

While the physiological interpretation of such putative burst events is still open to debate (van Ede et al., 2018a), their possibility has prompted researchers to dissect how cognitive factors affect their putative constituent parameters at a single-trial level, such as changes in amplitude, rate, timing, and duration of burst events (Fig. 3C, right column). In principle, the increased granularity and quantification of these event parameters may provide closer correspondence with the underlying physiology and help chart links between neurophysiological events and cognition. In attention research, for example, attenuation of beta activity in anticipation of a tactile target (as in Jones et al., 2010; van Ede et al., 2011, 2012) has been linked specifically to a decrease in the rate of punctate beta bursts, which also predicts perceptual performance (Shin et al., 2017).

Future outlook

Over the last 50 years, we have learned a lot about what is happening under the mind's hood. The tools are improving all the time. Yet, we are far from done understanding this mysterious motor. If our explorations have taught us one lesson, it is to remain openminded. Sometimes we tend to place too much value in our local interpretations and be overly dismissive of alternative or additional possibilities. This slows progress. In the context of this review, we have highlighted some past examples, such as the phrenological importance of specific brain areas, the primacy of brain responses triggered by external events, the disregard for spectral signals, and the disregard for variability of the strength and timing of neural events. We may think we are smarter now, but most likely we are blind to some current traps. For example, are the canonical resting-state networks of today too rigid of a concept, akin to a new version of the old phrenological unit and similarly prone to mask the true level of flexibility and interaction in the brain? Who knows, but why put on blinkers when the adventure is getting so interesting?

In building the future toolkit, we must remember that mind and brain make behavior. To investigate the link, we need to start applying the same level of ingenuity to develop the means with which to investigate the complexity and richness of behavior as we have applied to understanding the brain. Incredibly, typical studies of human cognition involve behavioral measures confined to simple individual responses, such as the accuracy and timing of a button press or of an eye movement. It is time that we upgrade to measures of trajectories, force, hesitations, postural relations, activity across muscles; and that we let our participants stand up, move around, and interact in real or virtual environments. Methods for capturing various aspects of immersive behavior are being developed, often within the contexts of the tech and entertainment industry, simulation training, or clinical rehabilitation. Neuroscientists interested in human cognition and behavior need to step up their game and contribute to the refinement of these methods as well. Doing so will also prompt innovations in how we measure brain activity. Exciting developments in methods for measuring brain activity in natural environments and during normal active behavior are afoot (e.g., De Vos et al., 2014; Boto et al., 2018).

In a similar spirit, we must not treat the brain as an isolated organ, but remember it is part of a much larger ecosystem: the body. As a consequence, many signals in the periphery provide complementary windows into the neural basis of cognitive processes, even when these processes are conventionally considered to be “covert” (e.g., Hafed and Clark, 2002; Engbert and Kliegl, 2003; van Ede and Maris, 2013; Corneil and Munoz, 2014). Two striking examples of this come from our own recent work on attentional operations in working memory, revealing microsaccadic gaze biases (van Ede et al., 2019a) and pupil dilations (Zokaei et al., 2019) during purely internal attentional focusing. Nor should we forget the reverse direction of influence: many inputs to the brain come from other organs of the body, and these inputs too may interact with neural processes linked to cognition (e.g., Park et al., 2014; Azzalini et al., 2019).

The final frontier will be to forge a much closer relationship between human cognitive neuroscience and the rest of neuroscience research. No matter how far along noninvasive methods for watching the brain at work have come, complementary approaches are required for testing the causal contribution of activity in brain networks to human cognition, such as interference-based stimulation methods or neuropsychological testing of individuals with lesions or damage to brain areas or networks. In addition, a deep understanding of the human mind, brain, and behavior will require integration with findings from methods at the systems, cellular, and molecular levels, which provide finer spatial and temporal resolution for measuring signals as well as for manipulating or interfering with brain signals. Integrating across levels of organization is much more difficult than working with any one level, but this should not deter us. After all, it is where it all comes together.

Footnotes

  • This work was supported by Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator Award 104571/Z/14/Z and James S. McDonnell Foundation Understanding Human Cognition Collaborative Award 220020448 to A.C.N, European Commission Marie Sklodowska-Curie Fellowship ACCESS2WM to F.v.E, and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. The Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging was supported by core funding from Wellcome Trust 203139/Z/16/Z. The funders had no role in preparation of the manuscript, or the decision to publish.

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Anna Christina Nobre at kia.nobre{at}ohba.ox.ac.uk

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided that the original work is properly attributed.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Adrian ED,
    2. Matthews BH
    (1934) The Berger rhythm: potential changes from the occipital lobes in man. Brain 57:355–385. doi:10.1093/brain/57.4.355
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Allison T,
    2. Wood CC,
    3. McCarthy G
    (1986) The central nervous system. In: Psychophysiology: systems, processes, and applications (Coles MG, Donchin E, Porges SW, eds), pp 5–25. New York: Guilford.
  3. ↵
    1. Astle DE,
    2. Luckhoo H,
    3. Woolrich M,
    4. Kuo BC,
    5. Nobre AC,
    6. Scerif G
    (2015) The neural dynamics of fronto-parietal networks in childhood revealed using magnetoencephalography. Cereb Cortex 25:3868–3876. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhu271 pmid:25410426
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Awh E,
    2. Armstrong KM,
    3. Moore T
    (2006) Visual and oculomotor selection: links, causes and implications for spatial attention. Trends Cogn Sci 10:124–130. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.01.001 pmid:16469523
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Azzalini D,
    2. Rebollo I,
    3. Tallon-Baudry C
    (2019) Visceral signals shape brain dynamics and cognition. Trends Cogn Sci 3:488–509. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.03.007 pmid:31047813
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Baker AP,
    2. Brookes MJ,
    3. Rezek IA,
    4. Smith SM,
    5. Behrens T,
    6. Probert Smith J,
    7. Woolrich M
    (2014) Fast transient networks in spontaneous human brain activity. Elife 3:e01867. doi:10.7554/eLife.01867 pmid:24668169
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Baldauf D,
    2. Desimone R
    (2014) Neural mechanisms of object-based attention. Science 344:424–427. doi:10.1126/science.1247003 pmid:24763592
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Bandettini PA,
    2. Wong EC,
    3. Hinks RS,
    4. Tikofsky RS,
    5. Hyde JS
    (1992) Time course EPI of human brain function during task activation. Magn Reson Med 25:390–397. doi:10.1002/mrm.1910250220 pmid:1614324
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Barker AT,
    2. Jalinous R,
    3. Freeston IL
    (1985) Non-invasive magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex. Lancet 325:1106–1107. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92413-4 pmid:2860322
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Bentin S,
    2. Kutas M,
    3. Hillyard SA
    (1995) Semantic processing and memory for attended and unattended words in dichotic listening: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 21:54–67. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.21.1.54 pmid:7707033
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Berger H
    (1929) Über das elektrenkephalogramm des menschen. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 87:527–570.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    1. Biswal B,
    2. Zerrin Yetkin FZ,
    3. Haughton VM,
    4. Hyde JS
    (1995) Functional connectivity in the motor cortex of resting human brain using echo-planar MRI. Magn Reson Med 34:537–541. doi:10.1002/mrm.1910340409 pmid:8524021
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Bloch F
    (1946) Nuclear induction. Phys Rev 70:460. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.70.460
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Boto E,
    2. Holmes N,
    3. Leggett J,
    4. Roberts G,
    5. Shah V,
    6. Meyer SS,
    7. Muñoz LD,
    8. Mullinger KJ,
    9. Tierney TM,
    10. Bestmann S,
    11. Barnes GR,
    12. Bowtell R,
    13. Brookes MJ
    (2018) Moving magnetoencephalography towards real-world applications with a wearable system. Nature 555:657–661. doi:10.1038/nature26147 pmid:29562238
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Brefczynski JA,
    2. DeYoe EA
    (1999) A physiological correlate of the 'spotlight' of visual attention. Nat Neurosci 2:370–374. doi:10.1038/7280 pmid:10204545
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Broadbent DE
    (1958) Perception and communication. New York: Elmsford.
  17. ↵
    1. Broca P
    (1861) Remarks on the seat of the faculty of articulated language, following an observation of aphemia (loss of speech). Bull Soc Anat 6:330–57.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Brookes MJ,
    2. Woolrich M,
    3. Luckhoo H,
    4. Price D,
    5. Hale JR,
    6. Stephenson MC,
    7. Barnes GR,
    8. Smith SM,
    9. Morris PG
    (2011) Investigating the electrophysiological basis of resting state networks using magnetoencephalography. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:16783–16788. doi:10.1073/pnas.1112685108 pmid:21930901
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Brown RJ,
    2. Norcia AM
    (1997) A method for investigating binocular rivalry in real-time with the steady-state VEP. Vision Res 37:2401–2408. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00045-X pmid:9381675
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Büchel C,
    2. Friston KJ
    (1997) Modulation of connectivity in visual pathways by attention: cortical interactions evaluated with structural equation modelling and fMRI. Cereb Cortex 7:768–778. doi:10.1093/cercor/7.8.768 pmid:9408041
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Buonomano DV,
    2. Maass W
    (2009) State-dependent computations: spatiotemporal processing in cortical networks. Nat Rev Neurosci 10:113–125. doi:10.1038/nrn2558 pmid:19145235
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Caton R
    (1875) The electrical currents of the brain. Br Med J 2:278.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Chang EF,
    2. Rieger JW,
    3. Johnson K,
    4. Berger MS,
    5. Barbaro NM,
    6. Knight RT
    (2010) Categorical speech representation in human superior temporal gyrus. Nat Neurosci 13:1428–1432. doi:10.1038/nn.2641 pmid:20890293
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Chelazzi L,
    2. Miller EK,
    3. Duncan J,
    4. Desimone R
    (1993) A neural basis for visual search in inferior temporal cortex. Nature 363:345–347. doi:10.1038/363345a0 pmid:8497317
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Chun MM
    (2000) Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends Cogn Sci 4:170–178. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01476-5 pmid:10782102
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Chun MM,
    2. Jiang Y
    (1998) Contextual cueing: implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cogn Psychol 36:28–71. doi:10.1006/cogp.1998.0681 pmid:9679076
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Cichy RM,
    2. Ramirez FM,
    3. Pantazis D
    (2015) Can visual information encoded in cortical columns be decoded from magnetoencephalography data in humans? Neuroimage 121:193–204. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.07.011 pmid:26162550
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Clark VP,
    2. Hillyard SA
    (1996) Spatial selective attention affects early extrastriate but not striate components of the visual evoked potential. J Cogn Neurosci 8:387–402. doi:10.1162/jocn.1996.8.5.387 pmid:23961943
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Cohen D
    (1972) Magnetoencephalography: detection of the brain's electrical activity with a superconducting magnetometer. Science 175:664–666. doi:10.1126/science.175.4022.664 pmid:5009769
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Corbetta M,
    2. Miezin FM,
    3. Dobmeyer S,
    4. Shulman GL,
    5. Petersen SE
    (1990) Attentional modulation of neural processing of shape, color, and velocity in humans. Science 248:1556–1559. doi:10.1126/science.2360050 pmid:2360050
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Corbetta M,
    2. Miezin FM,
    3. Shulman GL,
    4. Petersen SE
    (1993) A PET study of visuospatial attention. J Neurosci 13:1202–1226. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.13-03-01202.1993 pmid:8441008
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Corbetta M,
    2. Akbudak E,
    3. Conturo TE,
    4. Snyder AZ,
    5. Ollinger JM,
    6. Drury HA,
    7. Linenweber MR,
    8. Petersen SE,
    9. Raichle ME,
    10. Van Essen DC,
    11. Shulman GL
    (1998) A common network of functional areas for attention and eye movements. Neuron 21:761–773. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80593-0 pmid:9808463
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Corbetta M,
    2. Kincade JM,
    3. Ollinger JM,
    4. McAvoy MP,
    5. Shulman GL
    (2000) Voluntary orienting is dissociated from target detection in human posterior parietal cortex. Nat Neurosci 3:292–297. doi:10.1038/73009 pmid:10700263
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Corneil BD,
    2. Munoz DP
    (2014) Overt responses during covert orienting. Neuron 82:1230–1243. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.05.040 pmid:24945769
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Cravo AM,
    2. Rohenkohl G,
    3. Wyart V,
    4. Nobre AC
    (2013) Temporal expectation enhances contrast sensitivity by phase entrainment of low-frequency oscillations in visual cortex. J Neurosci 33:4002–4010. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4675-12.2013 pmid:23447609
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Damoiseaux JS,
    2. Rombouts SA,
    3. Barkhof F,
    4. Scheltens P,
    5. Stam CJ,
    6. Smith SM,
    7. Beckmann CF
    (2006) Consistent resting-state networks across healthy subjects. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:13848–13853. doi:10.1073/pnas.0601417103 pmid:16945915
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Davis PA
    (1939) Effects of acoustic stimuli on the waking human brain. J Neurophysiol 2:494–499. doi:10.1152/jn.1939.2.6.494
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    1. Dawson GD
    (1954) A summation technique for the detection of small evoked potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 6:65–84. doi:10.1016/0013-4694(54)90007-3 pmid:13141922
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. de Pasquale F,
    2. Della Penna S,
    3. Snyder AZ,
    4. Lewis C,
    5. Mantini D,
    6. Marzetti L,
    7. Belardinelli P,
    8. Ciancetta L,
    9. Pizzella V,
    10. Romani GL,
    11. Corbetta M
    (2010) Temporal dynamics of spontaneous MEG activity in brain networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:6040–6045. doi:10.1073/pnas.0913863107 pmid:20304792
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Desimone R,
    2. Duncan J
    (1995) Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu Rev Neurosci 18:193–222. doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205 pmid:7605061
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Deutsch JA,
    2. Deutsch D
    (1963) Attention: some theoretical considerations. Psychol Rev 70:80–90. doi:10.1037/h0039515 pmid:14027390
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. De Vos M,
    2. Kroesen M,
    3. Emkes R,
    4. Debener S
    (2014) P300 speller BCI with a mobile EEG system: comparison to a traditional amplifier. J Neural Eng 11:036008. doi:10.1088/1741-2560/11/3/036008 pmid:24763067
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Doherty JR,
    2. Rao A,
    3. Mesulam MM,
    4. Nobre AC
    (2005) Synergistic effect of combined temporal and spatial expectations on visual attention. J Neurosci 25:8259–8266. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1821-05.2005 pmid:16148233
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Donchin E,
    2. Ritter W,
    3. McCallum WC
    (1978) Cognitive psychophysiology: the endogenous components of the ERP. In: Event-related brain potentials in man, pp 349–411. New York: Academic Press.
  45. ↵
    1. Donders FC
    (1869) Over de snelheid van psychische processen. Nederlandsch Archief voor Genees- en Natuurkunde 4:117–145.
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Eimer M
    (2014) The time course of spatial attention: insights from event-related brain potentials. Oxford Handb Attent 1:289–317.
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Engbert R
    (2006) Microsaccades: a microcosm for research on oculomotor control, attention, and visual perception. Prog Brain Res 154:177–192. doi:10.1016/S0079-6123(06)54009-9 pmid:17010710
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Engbert R,
    2. Kliegl R
    (2003) Microsaccades uncover the orientation of covert attention. Vision Res 43:1035–1045. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(03)00084-1 pmid:12676246
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Feingold J,
    2. Gibson DJ,
    3. DePasquale B,
    4. Graybiel AM
    (2015) Bursts of beta oscillation differentiate postperformance activity in the striatum and motor cortex of monkeys performing movement tasks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:13687–13692. doi:10.1073/pnas.1517629112 pmid:26460033
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Florin E,
    2. Baillet S
    (2015) The brain's resting-state activity is shaped by synchronized cross-frequency coupling of neural oscillations. Neuroimage 111:26–35. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.054 pmid:25680519
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Foster JJ,
    2. Bsales EM,
    3. Jaffe RJ,
    4. Awh E
    (2017) Alpha-band activity reveals spontaneous representations of spatial position in visual working memory. Curr Biol 27:3216–3223.e6 doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.09.031 pmid:29033335
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Fox MD,
    2. Snyder AZ,
    3. Vincent JL,
    4. Corbetta M,
    5. Van Essen DC,
    6. Raichle ME
    (2005) The human brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:9673–9678. doi:10.1073/pnas.0504136102 pmid:15976020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. ↵
    1. Foxe JJ,
    2. Snyder AC
    (2011) The role of alpha-band brain oscillations as a sensory suppression mechanism during selective attention. Front Psychol 2:154. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00154 pmid:21779269
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Foxe JJ,
    2. Simpson GV,
    3. Ahlfors SP
    (1998) Parieto-occipital ∼10 Hz activity reflects anticipatory state of visual attention mechanisms. Neuroreport 9:3929–3933. doi:10.1097/00001756-199812010-00030 pmid:9875731
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Frackowiak RS,
    2. Jones T,
    3. Lenzi GL,
    4. Heather JD
    (1980) Regional cerebral oxygen utilization and blood flow in normal man using oxygen-15 and positron emission tomography. Acta Neurol Scand 62:336–344. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0404.1980.tb03046.x pmid:6970494
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Fries P
    (2015) Rhythms for cognition: communication through coherence. Neuron 88:220–235. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.034 pmid:26447583
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Friston KJ,
    2. Dolan RJ
    (2010) Computational and dynamic models in neuroimaging. Neuroimage 52:752–765. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.068 pmid:20036335
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Friston KJ,
    2. Holmes AP,
    3. Worsley KJ,
    4. Poline JP,
    5. Frith CD,
    6. Frackowiak RS
    (1994) Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: a general linear approach. Hum Brain Mapp 2:189–210. doi:10.1002/hbm.460020402
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. ↵
    1. Fulton JF
    (1928) Observations upon the vascularity of the human occipital lobe during visual activity. Brain 51:310–320. doi:10.1093/brain/51.3.310
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. ↵
    1. Galambos R,
    2. Sheatz GC
    (1962) An electroencephalograph study of classical conditioning. Am J Physiol 203:173–184. doi:10.1152/ajplegacy.1962.203.1.173 pmid:13896298
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Garceau EL,
    2. Davis H
    (1934) An amplifier, recording system, and stimulating devices for the study of cerebral action currents. Am J Physiol 107:305–310. doi:10.1152/ajplegacy.1934.107.2.305
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. ↵
    1. Garcia JO,
    2. Srinivasan R,
    3. Serences JT
    (2013) Near-real-time feature-selective modulations in human cortex. Curr Biol 23:515–522. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.02.013 pmid:23477721
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Gitelman DR,
    2. Nobre AC,
    3. Parrish TB,
    4. LaBar KS,
    5. Kim YH,
    6. Meyer JR,
    7. Mesulam M
    (1999) A large-scale distributed network for covert spatial attention: further anatomical delineation based on stringent behavioural and cognitive controls. Brain 122:1093–1106. doi:10.1093/brain/122.6.1093 pmid:10356062
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Gould IC,
    2. Rushworth MF,
    3. Nobre AC
    (2011) Indexing the graded allocation of visuospatial attention using anticipatory alpha oscillations. J Neurophysiol 105:1318–1326. doi:10.1152/jn.00653.2010 pmid:21228304
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Haegens S,
    2. Nácher V,
    3. Luna R,
    4. Romo R,
    5. Jensen O
    (2011) α-Oscillations in the monkey sensorimotor network influence discrimination performance by rhythmical inhibition of neuronal spiking. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:19377–19382. doi:10.1073/pnas.1117190108 pmid:22084106
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. ↵
    1. Hafed ZM,
    2. Clark JJ
    (2002) Microsaccades as an overt measure of covert attention shifts. Vision Res 42:2533–2545. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(02)00263-8 pmid:12445847
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Hämäläinen M,
    2. Hari R
    (2002) Magnetoencephalographic (MEG) characterization of dynamic brain activation. Brain mapping: the methods, Ed 2 (Toga A, Mazziotta J, eds), pp 227–254. Amsterdam: Academic.
  68. ↵
    1. Hansen JC,
    2. Hillyard SA
    (1983) Selective attention to multidimensional auditory stimuli. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 9:1–19. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.9.1.1 pmid:6220115
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Hanslmayr S,
    2. Aslan A,
    3. Staudigl T,
    4. Klimesch W,
    5. Herrmann CS,
    6. Bäuml KH
    (2007) Prestimulus oscillations predict visual perception performance between and within subjects. Neuroimage 37:1465–1473. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.011 pmid:17706433
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Hari R,
    2. Salmelin R
    (1997) Human cortical oscillations: a neuromagnetic view through the skull. Trends Neurosci 20:44–49. doi:10.1016/S0166-2236(96)10065-5 pmid:9004419
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Harlow JM
    (1868) Recovery from the passage of an iron bar through the head. Publ Mass Med Soc 2:327–347.
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. Hauk O,
    2. Davis MH,
    3. Pulvermüller F
    (2008) Modulation of brain activity by multiple lexical and word form variables in visual word recognition: a parametric fMRI study. Neuroimage 42:1185–1195. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.05.054 pmid:18582580
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Haxby JV,
    2. Gobbini MI,
    3. Furey ML,
    4. Ishai A,
    5. Schouten JL,
    6. Pietrini P
    (2001) Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventral temporal cortex. Science 293:2425–2430. doi:10.1126/science.1063736 pmid:11577229
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. Haynes JD,
    2. Rees G
    (2006) Neuroimaging: decoding mental states from brain activity in humans. Nat Rev Neurosci 7:523–534. doi:10.1038/nrn1931 pmid:16791142
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Heideman SG,
    2. Rohenkohl G,
    3. Chauvin JJ,
    4. Palmer CE,
    5. van Ede F,
    6. Nobre AC
    (2018) Anticipatory neural dynamics of spatial-temporal orienting of attention in younger and older adults. Neuroimage 178:46–56. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.05.002 pmid:29733953
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Helmholtz HL
    (1853) Ueber einige Gesetze der Vertheilung elektrischer Ströme in körperlichen Leitern mit Anwendung auf die thierisch-elektrischen Versuche. Ann Physik Chem 89:211–233, 353–377.
    OpenUrl
  77. ↵
    1. Herrmann CS,
    2. Rach S,
    3. Neuling T,
    4. Strüber D
    (2013) Transcranial alternating current stimulation: a review of the underlying mechanisms and modulation of cognitive processes. Front Hum Neurosci 7:279. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00279 pmid:23785325
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Hillyard SA,
    2. Hink RF,
    3. Schwent VL,
    4. Picton TW
    (1973) Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain. Science 182:177–180. doi:10.1126/science.182.4108.177 pmid:4730062
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. ↵
    1. Hipp JF,
    2. Hawellek DJ,
    3. Corbetta M,
    4. Siegel M,
    5. Engel AK
    (2012) Large-scale cortical correlation structure of spontaneous oscillatory activity. Nat Neurosci 15:884–890. doi:10.1038/nn.3101 pmid:22561454
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Hopf JM,
    2. Boelmans K,
    3. Schoenfeld MA,
    4. Luck SJ,
    5. Heinze HJ
    (2004) Attention to features precedes attention to locations in visual search: evidence from electromagnetic brain responses in humans. J Neurosci 24:1822–1832. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3564-03.2004 pmid:14985422
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. ↵
    1. Hopfinger JB,
    2. Buonocore MH,
    3. Mangun GR
    (2000) The neural mechanisms of top-down attentional control. Nat Neurosci 3:284–291. doi:10.1038/72999 pmid:10700262
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Huang NE,
    2. Shen Z,
    3. Long SR,
    4. Wu MC,
    5. Shih HH,
    6. Zheng Q,
    7. Yen NC.,
    8. Tung CC,
    9. Liu HH
    (1998) The empirical mode decomposition and the Hilbert spectrum for nonlinear and non-stationary time series analysis. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 454:903–995.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. ↵
    1. Huang NE,
    2. Hu K,
    3. Yang AC,
    4. Chang HC,
    5. Jia D,
    6. Liang WK,
    7. Yeh JR,
    8. Kao CL,
    9. Juan CH,
    10. Peng CK,
    11. Meijer JH,
    12. Wang YH,
    13. Long SR,
    14. Wu Z
    (2016) On Holo-Hilbert spectral analysis: a full informational spectral representation for nonlinear and non-stationary data. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 374:20150206. doi:10.1098/rsta.2015.0206 pmid:26953180
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Ikkai A,
    2. Curtis CE
    (2011) Common neural mechanisms supporting spatial working memory, attention and motor intention. Neuropsychologia 49:1428–1434. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.12.020 pmid:21182852
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Ingvar DH,
    2. Risberg J
    (1965) Influence of mental activity upon regional cerebral blood flow in man: a preliminary study. Acta Neurol Scand 41 [S14]:183–186.
    OpenUrl
  86. ↵
    1. Jasper H,
    2. Penfield W
    (1949) Electrocorticograms in man: effect of voluntary movement upon the electrical activity of the precentral gyrus. Arch Psychiatrie Nervenkrankheiten 183:163–174. doi:10.1007/BF01062488
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  87. ↵
    1. Jensen O,
    2. Mazaheri A
    (2010) Shaping functional architecture by oscillatory alpha activity: gating by inhibition. Front Hum Neurosci 4:186. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2010.00186 pmid:21119777
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. ↵
    1. Jones SR,
    2. Kerr CE,
    3. Wan Q,
    4. Pritchett DL,
    5. Hämäläinen M,
    6. Moore CI
    (2010) Cued spatial attention drives functionally relevant modulation of the mu rhythm in primary somatosensory cortex. J Neurosci 30:13760–13765. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2969-10.2010 pmid:20943916
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  89. ↵
    1. Jonikaitis D,
    2. Moore T
    (2019) The interdependence of attention, working memory and gaze control: behavior and neural circuitry. Curr Opin Psychol 29:126–134. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.01.012 pmid:30825836
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Kamitani Y,
    2. Tong F
    (2005) Decoding the visual and subjective contents of the human brain. Nat Neurosci 8:679–685. doi:10.1038/nn1444 pmid:15852014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. ↵
    1. Kastner S,
    2. De Weerd P,
    3. Desimone R,
    4. Ungerleider LG
    (1998) Mechanisms of directed attention in the human extrastriate cortex as revealed by functional MRI. Science 282:108–111. doi:10.1126/science.282.5386.108 pmid:9756472
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. ↵
    1. Kastner S,
    2. Pinsk MA,
    3. De Weerd P,
    4. Desimone R,
    5. Ungerleider LG
    (1999) Increased activity in human visual cortex during directed attention in the absence of visual stimulation. Neuron 22:751–761. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80734-5 pmid:10230795
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. ↵
    1. Khanna A,
    2. Pascual-Leone A,
    3. Michel CM,
    4. Farzan F
    (2015) Microstates in resting-state EEG: current status and future directions. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 49:105–113. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.12.010 pmid:25526823
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. ↵
    1. King JR,
    2. Dehaene S
    (2014) Characterizing the dynamics of mental representations: the temporal generalization method. Trends Cogn Sci 18:203–210. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.01.002 pmid:24593982
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. ↵
    1. Klimesch W
    (1999) EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: a review and analysis. Brain Res Rev 29:169–195. doi:10.1016/S0165-0173(98)00056-3 pmid:10209231
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. ↵
    1. Kok P,
    2. Jehee JF,
    3. de Lange FP
    (2012) Less is more: expectation sharpens representations in the primary visual cortex. Neuron 75:265–270. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.034 pmid:22841311
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. ↵
    1. Konen CS,
    2. Kastner S
    (2008) Two hierarchically organized neural systems for object information in human visual cortex. Nat Neurosci 11:224–231. doi:10.1038/nn2036 pmid:18193041
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. ↵
    1. Kriegeskorte N,
    2. Goebel R,
    3. Bandettini P
    (2006) Information-based functional brain mapping. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:3863–3868. doi:10.1073/pnas.0600244103 pmid:16537458
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  99. ↵
    1. Kwong KK,
    2. Belliveau JW,
    3. Chesler DA,
    4. Goldberg IE,
    5. Weisskoff RM,
    6. Poncelet BP,
    7. Kennedy DN,
    8. Hoppel BE,
    9. Cohen MS,
    10. Turner R
    (1992) Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of human brain activity during primary sensory stimulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89:5675–5679. doi:10.1073/pnas.89.12.5675 pmid:1608978
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  100. ↵
    1. Lachaux JP,
    2. Rudrauf D,
    3. Kahane P
    (2003) Intracranial EEG and human brain mapping. J Physiol Paris 97:613–628. doi:10.1016/j.jphysparis.2004.01.018 pmid:15242670
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. ↵
    1. Lamme VA,
    2. Roelfsema PR
    (2000) The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing. Trends Neurosci 23:571–579. doi:10.1016/S0166-2236(00)01657-X pmid:11074267
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. ↵
    1. Landau WM,
    2. Freygang WH Jr.,
    3. Roland LP,
    4. Sokoloff L,
    5. Kety SS
    (1955) The local circulation of the living brain: values in the unanesthetized and anesthetized cat. Trans Am Neurol Assoc 80:125–129. pmid:13312020
    OpenUrlPubMed
  103. ↵
    1. Lansing RW
    (1964) Electroencephalographic correlates of binocular rivalry in man. Science 146:1325–1327. doi:10.1126/science.146.3649.1325 pmid:14207465
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  104. ↵
    1. LaRocque JJ,
    2. Lewis-Peacock JA,
    3. Drysdale AT,
    4. Oberauer K,
    5. Postle BR
    (2013) Decoding attended information in short-term memory: an EEG study. J Cogn Neurosci 25:127–142. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00305 pmid:23198894
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. ↵
    1. Lassen NA,
    2. Høledt-Hasmussen K,
    3. Søremen SC,
    4. Skinhøj E,
    5. Cronquist S,
    6. Bodforss B,
    7. Ingvar DH
    (1963) Regional cerebral blood flow in man determined by krypton85. Neurology 13:719–727. doi:10.1212/WNL.13.9.719 pmid:14064304
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. ↵
    1. Lassen NA,
    2. Ingvar DH,
    3. Skinhøj E
    (1978) Brain function and blood flow. Sci Am 239:62–71. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1078-62 pmid:705327
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. ↵
    1. Latimer KW,
    2. Yates JL,
    3. Meister ML,
    4. Huk AC,
    5. Pillow JW
    (2015) Single-trial spike trains in parietal cortex reveal discrete steps during decision-making. Science 349:184–187. doi:10.1126/science.aaa4056 pmid:26160947
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  108. ↵
    1. Lauterbur PC
    (1973) Image formation by induced local interactions: examples employing nuclear magnetic resonance. Nature 242:190–191. doi:10.1038/242190a0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  109. ↵
    1. Leonards U,
    2. Palix J,
    3. Michel C,
    4. Ibanez V
    (2003) Comparison of early cortical networks in efficient and inefficient visual search: an event-related potential study. J Cogn Neurosci 15:1039–1051. doi:10.1162/089892903770007425 pmid:14614814
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. ↵
    1. Loeb J
    (1885) Die elementaren Störungen einfacher Functionen nach oberflächlicher, umschriebener Verletzung des Groβhirns. Pflügers Arch Eur J Physiol 37:51–56.
    OpenUrl
  111. ↵
    1. Luck SJ
    (1995) Multiple mechanisms of visual-spatial attention: recent evidence from human electrophysiology. Behav Brain Res 71:113–123. doi:10.1016/0166-4328(95)00041-0 pmid:8747179
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  112. ↵
    1. Luck SJ,
    2. Hillyard SA,
    3. Mouloua M,
    4. Woldorff MG,
    5. Clark VP,
    6. Hawkins HL
    (1994) Effects of spatial cuing on luminance detectability: psychophysical and electrophysiological evidence for early selection. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 20:887–904. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.20.4.887 pmid:8083642
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. ↵
    1. Luck SJ,
    2. Woodman GF,
    3. Vogel EK
    (2000) Event-related potential studies of attention. Trends Cogn Sci 4:432–440. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01545-X pmid:11058821
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. ↵
    1. Lundqvist M,
    2. Rose J,
    3. Herman P,
    4. Brincat SL,
    5. Buschman TJ,
    6. Miller EK
    (2016) Gamma and beta bursts underlie working memory. Neuron 90:152–164. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.02.028 pmid:26996084
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  115. ↵
    1. Mangun GR,
    2. Hillyard SA
    (1987) The spatial allocation of visual attention as indexed by event-related brain potentials. Hum Factors 29:195–211. doi:10.1177/001872088702900207 pmid:3610184
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  116. ↵
    1. Mangun GR,
    2. Hillyard SA
    (1991) Modulations of sensory-evoked brain potentials indicate changes in perceptual processing during visual-spatial priming. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 17:1057–1074. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.17.4.1057 pmid:1837297
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  117. ↵
    1. Mansfield P
    (1977) Multi-planar image formation using NMR spin echoes. Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 10:L55–L58. doi:10.1088/0022-3719/10/3/004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  118. ↵
    1. Mantini D,
    2. Perrucci MG,
    3. Del Gratta C,
    4. Romani GL,
    5. Corbetta M
    (2007) Electrophysiological signatures of resting state networks in the human brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:13170–13175. doi:10.1073/pnas.0700668104 pmid:17670949
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  119. ↵
    1. Maris E,
    2. Oostenveld R
    (2007) Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG-and MEG-data. J Neurosci Methods 164:177–190. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024 pmid:17517438
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. ↵
    1. Marti S,
    2. Dehaene S
    (2017) Discrete and continuous mechanisms of temporal selection in rapid visual streams. Nat Commun 8:1955. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02079-x pmid:29208892
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  121. ↵
    1. Marti S,
    2. King JR,
    3. Dehaene S
    (2015) Time-resolved decoding of two processing chains during dual-task interference. Neuron 88:1297–1307. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.10.040 pmid:26627309
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. ↵
    1. Martínez A,
    2. Anllo-Vento L,
    3. Sereno MI,
    4. Frank LR,
    5. Buxton RB,
    6. Dubowitz DJ,
    7. Wong EC,
    8. Hinrichs H,
    9. Heinze HJ,
    10. Hillyard SA
    (1999) Involvement of striate and extrastriate visual cortical areas in spatial attention. Nat Neurosci 2:364–369. doi:10.1038/7274 pmid:10204544
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  123. ↵
    1. Mazaheri A,
    2. Nieuwenhuis IL,
    3. van Dijk H,
    4. Jensen O
    (2009) Prestimulus alpha and mu activity predicts failure to inhibit motor responses. Hum Brain Mapp 30:1791–1800. doi:10.1002/hbm.20763 pmid:19308934
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  124. ↵
    1. McAlonan K,
    2. Cavanaugh J,
    3. Wurtz RH
    (2006) Attentional modulation of thalamic reticular neurons. J Neurosci 26:4444–4450. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5602-05.2006 pmid:16624964
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  125. ↵
    1. McAlonan K,
    2. Cavanaugh J,
    3. Wurtz RH
    (2008) Guarding the gateway to cortex with attention in visual thalamus. Nature 456:391–394. doi:10.1038/nature07382 pmid:18849967
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  126. ↵
    1. McCarthy G,
    2. Nobre AC
    (1993) Modulation of semantic processing by spatial selective attention. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 88:210–219. doi:10.1016/0168-5597(93)90005-A pmid:7684969
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  127. ↵
    1. Mesulam MM
    (1981) A cortical network for directed attention and unilateral neglect. Ann Neurol 10:309–325. doi:10.1002/ana.410100402 pmid:7032417
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  128. ↵
    1. Mesulam MM
    (1990) Large-scale neurocognitive networks and distributed processing for attention, language, and memory. Ann Neurol 28:597–613. doi:10.1002/ana.410280502 pmid:2260847
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  129. ↵
    1. Moore T,
    2. Fallah M
    (2004) Microstimulation of the frontal eye field and its effects on covert spatial attention. J Neurophysiol 91:152–162. doi:10.1152/jn.00741.2002 pmid:13679398
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  130. ↵
    1. Moran J,
    2. Desimone R
    (1985) Selective attention gates visual processing in the extrastriate cortex. Science 229:782–784. doi:10.1126/science.4023713 pmid:4023713
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  131. ↵
    1. Mosso A
    (1881) Ueber den Kreislauf des Blutes im Menschlichen Gehirn. Leipzig: Verlag von Veit.
  132. ↵
    1. Müller MM,
    2. Hübner R
    (2002) Can the spotlight of attention be shaped like a doughnut? Evidence from steady-state visual evoked potentials. Psychol Sci 13:119–124. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00422 pmid:11933994
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  133. ↵
    1. Müller MM,
    2. Malinowski P,
    3. Gruber T,
    4. Hillyard SA
    (2003) Sustained division of the attentional spotlight. Nature 424:309–312. doi:10.1038/nature01812 pmid:12867981
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  134. ↵
    1. Myers NE,
    2. Stokes MG,
    3. Walther L,
    4. Nobre AC
    (2014) Oscillatory brain state predicts variability in working memory. J Neurosci 34:7735–7743. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4741-13.2014 pmid:24899697
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  135. ↵
    1. Myers NE,
    2. Rohenkohl G,
    3. Wyart V,
    4. Woolrich MW,
    5. Nobre AC,
    6. Stokes MG
    (2015) Testing sensory evidence against mnemonic templates. Elife 4:e09000. doi:10.7554/eLife.09000 pmid:26653854
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  136. ↵
    1. Nienborg H,
    2. Cumming BG
    (2009) Decision-related activity in sensory neurons reflects more than a neuron's causal effect. Nature 459:89–92. doi:10.1038/nature07821 pmid:19270683
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  137. ↵
    1. Nobre AC
    (2018) Attention. In: Stevens' handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience, Vol 2: Sensation, perception, and attention, Ed 4 (Wixted JT, Serences J, eds), pp 241–316, New York: Wiley.
  138. ↵
    1. Nobre AC,
    2. Kastner S
    (2014) Attention: time capsule 2013. In: The Oxford handbook of attention (Nobre AC, Kastner S, eds), pp 1201–1222. Oxford: Oxford UP.
  139. ↵
    1. Nobre AC,
    2. McCarthy G
    (1995) Language-related field potentials in the anterior-medial temporal lobe: II. Effects of word type and semantic priming. J Neurosci 15:1090–1098. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.15-02-01090.1995 pmid:7869085
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  140. ↵
    1. Nobre AC,
    2. Allison T,
    3. McCarthy G
    (1994) Word recognition in the human inferior temporal lobe. Nature 372:260–263. doi:10.1038/372260a0 pmid:7969469
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  141. ↵
    1. Nobre AC,
    2. Sebestyen GN,
    3. Gitelman DR,
    4. Mesulam MM,
    5. Frackowiak RS,
    6. Frith CD
    (1997) Functional localization of the system for visuospatial attention using positron emission tomography. Brain 120:515–533. doi:10.1093/brain/120.3.515 pmid:9126062
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  142. ↵
    1. Nobre AC,
    2. Allison T,
    3. McCarthy G
    (1998) Modulation of human extrastriate visual processing by selective attention to colours and words. Brain 121:1357–1368. doi:10.1093/brain/121.7.1357 pmid:9679786
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  143. ↵
    1. Nobre AC,
    2. Gitelman DR,
    3. Dias EC,
    4. Mesulam MM
    (2000) Covert visual spatial orienting and saccades: overlapping neural systems. Neuroimage 11:210–216. doi:10.1006/nimg.2000.0539 pmid:10694463
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  144. ↵
    1. Nobre AC,
    2. Silvert L
    (2008) Measuring human cognition on-line with electrophysiological methods: the case of selective attention. In: Neuropsychological research: a review (Marien P, Abutalebi J, eds), pp 349–377. New York: Psychology.
  145. ↵
    1. O'Connor DH,
    2. Fukui MM,
    3. Pinsk MA,
    4. Kastner S
    (2002) Attention modulates responses in the human lateral geniculate nucleus. Nat Neurosci 5:1203–1209. doi:10.1038/nn957 pmid:12379861
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  146. ↵
    1. Ogawa S,
    2. Lee TM,
    3. Kay AR,
    4. Tank DW
    (1990) Brain magnetic resonance imaging with contrast dependent on blood oxygenation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 87:9868–9872. doi:10.1073/pnas.87.24.9868 pmid:2124706
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  147. ↵
    1. Ogawa S,
    2. Tank DW,
    3. Menon R,
    4. Ellermann JM,
    5. Kim SG,
    6. Merkle H,
    7. Ugurbil K
    (1992) Intrinsic signal changes accompanying sensory stimulation: functional brain mapping with magnetic resonance imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89:5951–5955. doi:10.1073/pnas.89.13.5951 pmid:1631079
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  148. ↵
    1. Olson IR,
    2. Chun MM,
    3. Allison T
    (2001) Contextual guidance of attention: human intracranial event-related potential evidence for feedback modulation in anatomically early temporally late stages of visual processing. Brain 124:1417–1425. doi:10.1093/brain/124.7.1417 pmid:11408336
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  149. ↵
    1. Oostenveld R,
    2. Fries P,
    3. Maris E,
    4. Schoffelen JM
    (2011) FieldTrip: open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Comput Intell Neurosci 2011:156869. doi:10.1155/2011/156869 pmid:21253357
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  150. ↵
    1. Park HD,
    2. Correia S,
    3. Ducorps A,
    4. Tallon-Baudry C
    (2014) Spontaneous fluctuations in neural responses to heartbeats predict visual detection. Nat Neurosci 17:612–618. doi:10.1038/nn.3671 pmid:24609466
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  151. ↵
    1. Pascual-Marqui RD,
    2. Michel CM,
    3. Lehmann D
    (1995) Segmentation of brain electrical activity into microstates: model estimation and validation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 42:658–665. doi:10.1109/10.391164 pmid:7622149
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  152. ↵
    1. Pessoa L,
    2. Gutierrez E,
    3. Bandettini P,
    4. Ungerleider L
    (2002) Neural correlates of visual working memory: fMRI amplitude predicts task performance. Neuron 35:975–987. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00817-6 pmid:12372290
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  153. ↵
    1. Petersen SE,
    2. Fox PT,
    3. Posner MI,
    4. Mintun M,
    5. Raichle ME
    (1988) Positron emission tomographic studies of the cortical anatomy of single-word processing. Nature 331:585–589. doi:10.1038/331585a0 pmid:3277066
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  154. ↵
    1. Pfurtscheller G,
    2. Aranibar A
    (1979) Evaluation of event-related desynchronization (ERD) preceding and following voluntary self-paced movement. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 46:138–146. doi:10.1016/0013-4694(79)90063-4 pmid:86421
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  155. ↵
    1. Pfurtscheller G,
    2. Lopes da Silva FH
    (1999) Event-related EEG/MEG synchronization and desynchronization: basic principles. Clin Neurophysiol 110:1842–1857. doi:10.1016/S1388-2457(99)00141-8 pmid:10576479
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  156. ↵
    1. Pollmann S,
    2. Manginelli AA
    (2010) Repeated contextual search cues lead to reduced BOLD-onset times in early visual and left inferior frontal cortex. Open Neuroimag J 4:9–15. doi:10.2174/1874440001004010009 pmid:20563254
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  157. ↵
    1. Posner MI
    (1978) Chronometric explorations of mind. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  158. ↵
    1. Posner MI,
    2. Petersen SE,
    3. Fox PT,
    4. Raichle ME
    (1988) Localization of cognitive operations in the human brain. Science 240:1627–1631. doi:10.1126/science.3289116 pmid:3289116
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  159. ↵
    1. Price CJ,
    2. Devlin JT
    (2003) The myth of the visual word form area. Neuroimage 19:473–481. doi:10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00084-3 pmid:12880781
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  160. ↵
    1. Purcell EM,
    2. Torrey HC,
    3. Pound RV
    (1946) Resonance absorption by nuclear magnetic moments in a solid. Phys Rev 69:37. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.69.37
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  161. ↵
    1. Raichle ME,
    2. Mintun MA
    (2006) Brain work and brain imaging. Annu Rev Neurosci 29:449–476. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.112819 pmid:16776593
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  162. ↵
    1. Raichle ME,
    2. Martin WR,
    3. Herscovitch P,
    4. Mintun MA,
    5. Markham J
    (1983) Brain blood flow measured with intravenous H215O: II. Implementation and validation. J Nucl Med 24:790–798. pmid:6604140
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  163. ↵
    1. Raichle ME,
    2. MacLeod AM,
    3. Snyder AZ,
    4. Powers WJ,
    5. Gusnard DA,
    6. Shulman GL
    (2001) A default mode of brain function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:676–682. doi:10.1073/pnas.98.2.676 pmid:11209064
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  164. ↵
    1. Ramkumar P,
    2. Jas M,
    3. Pannasch S,
    4. Hari R,
    5. Parkkonen L
    (2013) Feature-specific information processing precedes concerted activation in human visual cortex. J Neurosci 33:7691–7699. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3905-12.2013 pmid:23637162
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  165. ↵
    1. Reynolds JH,
    2. Chelazzi L
    (2004) Attentional modulation of visual processing. Annu Rev Neurosci 27:611–647. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.26.041002.131039 pmid:15217345
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  166. ↵
    1. Reynolds JH,
    2. Heeger DJ
    (2009) The normalization model of attention. Neuron 61:168–185. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2009.01.002 pmid:19186161
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  167. ↵
    1. Rohenkohl G,
    2. Nobre AC
    (2011) Alpha oscillations related to anticipatory attention follow temporal expectations. J Neurosci 31:14076–14084. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3387-11.2011 pmid:21976492
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  168. ↵
    1. Romei V,
    2. Gross J,
    3. Thut G
    (2010) On the role of prestimulus alpha rhythms over occipito-parietal areas in visual input regulation: correlation or causation? J Neurosci 30:8692–8697. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0160-10.2010 pmid:20573914
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  169. ↵
    1. Roy CS,
    2. Sherrington CS
    (1890) On the regulation of the blood-supply of the brain. J Physiol 11:85–108.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  170. ↵
    1. Ruff CC,
    2. Blankenburg F,
    3. Bjoertomt O,
    4. Bestmann S,
    5. Freeman E,
    6. Haynes JD,
    7. Rees G,
    8. Josephs O,
    9. Deichmann R,
    10. Driver J
    (2006) Concurrent TMS-fMRI and psychophysics reveal frontal influences on human retinotopic visual cortex. Curr Biol 16:1479–1488. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.06.057 pmid:16890523
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  171. ↵
    1. Rugg MD,
    2. Coles MG
    (1995) Electrophysiology of mind: event-related brain potentials and cognition. Oxford: Oxford UP.
  172. ↵
    1. Scolari M,
    2. Serences JT
    (2010) Basing perceptual decisions on the most informative sensory neurons. J Neurophysiol 104:2266–2273. doi:10.1152/jn.00273.2010 pmid:20631209
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  173. ↵
    1. Scolari M,
    2. Seidl-Rathkopf KN,
    3. Kastner S
    (2015) Functions of the human frontoparietal attention network: evidence from neuroimaging. Curr Opin Behav Sci 1:32–39. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.08.003 pmid:27398396
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  174. ↵
    1. Scoville WB,
    2. Milner B
    (1957) Loss of recent memory after bilateral hippocampal lesions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 20:11–21. doi:10.1136/jnnp.20.1.11 pmid:13406589
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  175. ↵
    1. Serences JT,
    2. Saproo S,
    3. Scolari M,
    4. Ho T,
    5. Muftuler LT
    (2009) Estimating the influence of attention on population codes in human visual cortex using voxel-based tuning functions. Neuroimage 44:223–231. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.07.043 pmid:18721888
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  176. ↵
    1. Shin H,
    2. Law R,
    3. Tsutsui S,
    4. Moore CI,
    5. Jones SR
    (2017) The rate of transient beta frequency events predicts behavior across tasks and species. Elife 6:e29086. doi:10.7554/eLife.29086 pmid:29106374
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  177. ↵
    1. Siegel M,
    2. Donner TH,
    3. Engel AK
    (2012) Spectral fingerprints of large-scale neuronal interactions. Nat Rev Neurosci 13:121–134. doi:10.1038/nrn3137 pmid:22233726
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  178. ↵
    1. Silver MA,
    2. Ress D,
    3. Heeger DJ
    (2005) Topographic maps of visual spatial attention in human parietal cortex. J Neurophysiol 94:1358–1371. doi:10.1152/jn.01316.2004 pmid:15817643
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  179. ↵
    1. Smith SM,
    2. Jenkinson M,
    3. Woolrich MW,
    4. Beckmann CF,
    5. Behrens TE,
    6. Johansen-Berg H,
    7. Bannister PR,
    8. De Luca M,
    9. Drobnjak I,
    10. Flitney DE,
    11. Niazy RK,
    12. Saunders J,
    13. Vickers J,
    14. Zhang Y,
    15. De Stefano N,
    16. Brady JM,
    17. Matthews PM
    (2004) Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL. Neuroimage 23:S208–S219. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.051 pmid:15501092
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  180. ↵
    1. Stokes M,
    2. Spaak E
    (2016) The importance of single-trial analyses in cognitive neuroscience. Trends Cogn Sci 20:483–486. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.05.008 pmid:27237797
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  181. ↵
    1. Stokes MG,
    2. Kusunoki M,
    3. Sigala N,
    4. Nili H,
    5. Gaffan D,
    6. Duncan J
    (2013) Dynamic coding for cognitive control in prefrontal cortex. Neuron 78:364–375. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.01.039 pmid:23562541
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  182. ↵
    1. Stokes MG,
    2. Wolff MJ,
    3. Spaak E
    (2015) Decoding rich spatial information with high temporal resolution. Trends Cogn Sci 19:636–638. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.016 pmid:26440122
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  183. ↵
    1. Stokes M,
    2. Thompson R,
    3. Nobre AC,
    4. Duncan J
    (2009) Shape-specific preparatory activity mediates attention to targets in human visual cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:19569–19574. doi:10.1073/pnas.0905306106 pmid:19887644
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  184. ↵
    1. Sutton S,
    2. Braren M,
    3. Zubin J,
    4. John ER
    (1965) Evoked-potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science 150:1187–1188. doi:10.1126/science.150.3700.1187 pmid:5852977
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  185. ↵
    1. Szczepanski SM,
    2. Kastner S
    (2013) Shifting attentional priorities: control of spatial attention through hemispheric competition. J Neurosci 33:5411–5421. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4089-12.2013 pmid:23516306
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  186. ↵
    1. Tallon-Baudry C,
    2. Bertrand O
    (1999) Oscillatory gamma activity in humans and its role in object representation. Trends Cogn Sci 3:151–162. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01299-1 pmid:10322469
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  187. ↵
    1. Thut G,
    2. Miniussi C
    (2009) New insights into rhythmic brain activity from TMS-EEG studies. Trends Cogn Sci 13:182–189. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.004 pmid:19286414
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  188. ↵
    1. Tononi G,
    2. Srinivasan R,
    3. Russell DP,
    4. Edelman GM
    (1998) Investigating neural correlates of conscious perception by frequency-tagged neuromagnetic responses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95:3198–3203. doi:10.1073/pnas.95.6.3198 pmid:9501240
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  189. ↵
    1. Tootell RB,
    2. Reppas JB,
    3. Kwong KK,
    4. Malach R,
    5. Born RT,
    6. Brady TJ,
    7. Rosen BR,
    8. Belliveau JW
    (1995) Functional analysis of human MT and related visual cortical areas using magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosci 15:3215–3230. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.15-04-03215.1995 pmid:7722658
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  190. ↵
    1. Tootell RB,
    2. Hadjikhani N,
    3. Hall EK,
    4. Marrett S,
    5. Vanduffel W,
    6. Vaughan JT,
    7. Dale AM
    (1998) The retinotopy of visual spatial attention. Neuron 21:1409–1422. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80659-5 pmid:9883733
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  191. ↵
    1. Valdes-Sosa M,
    2. Bobes MA,
    3. Rodriguez V,
    4. Pinilla T
    (1998) Switching attention without shifting the spotlight: object-based attentional modulation of brain potentials. J Cogn Neurosci 10:137–151. doi:10.1162/089892998563743 pmid:9526088
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  192. ↵
    1. van Dijk H,
    2. Schoffelen JM,
    3. Oostenveld R,
    4. Jensen O
    (2008) Prestimulus oscillatory activity in the alpha band predicts visual discrimination ability. J Neurosci 28:1816–1823. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1853-07.2008 pmid:18287498
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  193. ↵
    1. van Ede F
    (2018) Mnemonic and attentional roles for states of attenuated alpha oscillations in perceptual working memory: a review. Eur J Neurosci 48:2509–2515. doi:10.1111/ejn.13759 pmid:29068095
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  194. ↵
    1. van Ede F,
    2. Maris E
    (2013) Somatosensory demands modulate muscular beta oscillations, independent of motor demands. J Neurosci 33:10849–10857. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5629-12.2013 pmid:23804105
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  195. ↵
    1. van Ede F,
    2. Maris E
    (2016) Physiological plausibility can increase reproducibility in cognitive neuroscience. Trends Cogn Sci 20:567–569. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.05.006 pmid:27233147
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  196. ↵
    1. van Ede F,
    2. de Lange F,
    3. Jensen O,
    4. Maris E
    (2011) Orienting attention to an upcoming tactile event involves a spatially and temporally specific modulation of sensorimotor alpha-and beta-band oscillations. J Neurosci 31:2016–2024. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5630-10.2011 pmid:21307240
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  197. ↵
    1. van Ede F,
    2. Köster M,
    3. Maris E
    (2012) Beyond establishing involvement: quantifying the contribution of anticipatory α- and β-band suppression to perceptual improvement with attention. J Neurophysiol 108:2352–2362. doi:10.1152/jn.00347.2012 pmid:22896721
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  198. ↵
    1. van Ede F,
    2. Quinn AJ,
    3. Woolrich MW,
    4. Nobre AC
    (2018a) Neural oscillations: sustained rhythms or transient burst-events? Trends Neurosci 41:415–417. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2018.04.004 pmid:29739627
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  199. ↵
    1. van Ede F,
    2. Chekroud SR,
    3. Stokes MG,
    4. Nobre AC
    (2018b) Decoding the influence of anticipatory states on visual perception in the presence of temporal distractors. Nat Commun 9:1449. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03960-z pmid:29654312
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  200. ↵
    1. van Ede F,
    2. Chekroud SR,
    3. Nobre AC
    (2019a) Human gaze tracks attentional focusing in memorized visual space. Nat Hum Behav 3:462–470. doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0549-y pmid:31089296
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  201. ↵
    1. van Ede F,
    2. Chekroud SR,
    3. Stokes MG,
    4. Nobre AC
    (2019b) Concurrent visual and motor selection during visual working memory guided action. Nat Neurosci 22:477–483. doi:10.1038/s41593-018-0335-6 pmid:30718904
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  202. ↵
    1. Van Veen BD,
    2. Buckley KM
    (1988) Beamforming: a versatile approach to spatial filtering. IEEE ASSP Magazine 5:4–24. doi:10.1109/53.665
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  203. ↵
    1. Van Voorhis S,
    2. Hillyard SA
    (1977) Visual evoked potentials and selective attention to points in space. Percept Psychophys 22:54–62. doi:10.3758/BF03206080
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  204. ↵
    1. Vidaurre D,
    2. Hunt LT,
    3. Quinn AJ,
    4. Hunt BA,
    5. Brookes MJ,
    6. Nobre AC,
    7. Woolrich MW
    (2018) Spontaneous cortical activity transiently organises into frequency specific phase-coupling networks. Nat Commun 9:2987. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05316-z pmid:30061566
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  205. ↵
    1. Vidaurre D,
    2. Myers NE,
    3. Stokes M,
    4. Nobre AC,
    5. Woolrich MW
    (2019) Temporally unconstrained decoding reveals consistent but time-varying stages of stimulus processing. Cereb Cortex 29:863–874. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhy290 pmid:30535141
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  206. ↵
    1. Wallis G,
    2. Stokes M,
    3. Cousijn H,
    4. Woolrich M,
    5. Nobre AC
    (2015) Frontoparietal and cingulo-opercular networks play dissociable roles in control of working memory. J Cogn Neurosci 27:2019–2034. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00838 pmid:26042457
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  207. ↵
    1. Walter WG,
    2. Cooper R,
    3. Aldridge VJ,
    4. McCallum WC,
    5. Winter AL
    (1964) Contingent negative variation: an electric sign of sensorimotor association and expectancy in the human brain. Nature 230:380–384. doi:10.1038/203380a0 pmid:14197376
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  208. ↵
    1. Weissman DH,
    2. Roberts KC,
    3. Visscher KM,
    4. Woldorff MG
    (2006) The neural bases of momentary lapses in attention. Nat Neurosci 9:971–978. doi:10.1038/nn1727 pmid:16767087
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  209. ↵
    1. Weisz N,
    2. Wühle A,
    3. Monittola G,
    4. Demarchi G,
    5. Frey J,
    6. Popov T,
    7. Braun C
    (2014) Prestimulus oscillatory power and connectivity patterns predispose conscious somatosensory perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:E417–E425. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317267111 pmid:24474792
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  210. ↵
    1. Wernicke C
    (1874) Der aphasische Symptomencomplex: eine psychologische Studie auf anatomischer Basis. Breslau, Germany: Max Cohn & Weigert.
  211. ↵
    1. Wolff MJ,
    2. Jochim J,
    3. Akyürek EG,
    4. Stokes MG
    (2017) Dynamic hidden states underlying working-memory-guided behavior. Nat Neurosci 20:864–871. doi:10.1038/nn.4546 pmid:28414333
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  212. ↵
    1. Woodman GF
    (2010) A brief introduction to the use of event-related potentials in studies of perception and attention. Attent Percept Psychophys 72:2031–2046. doi:10.3758/APP.72.8.2031 pmid:21097848
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  213. ↵
    1. Worden MS,
    2. Foxe JJ,
    3. Wang N,
    4. Simpson GV
    (2000) Anticipatory biasing of visuospatial attention indexed by retinotopically specific-band electroencephalography increases over occipital cortex. J Neurosci 20:RC63. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-06-j0002.2000 pmid:10704517
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  214. ↵
    1. Wurtz RH,
    2. McAlonan K,
    3. Cavanaugh J,
    4. Berman RA
    (2011) Thalamic pathways for active vision. Trends Cogn Sci 15:177–184. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.02.004 pmid:21414835
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  215. ↵
    1. Zanto TP,
    2. Pan P,
    3. Liu H,
    4. Bollinger J,
    5. Nobre AC,
    6. Gazzaley A
    (2011) Age-related changes in orienting attention in time. J Neurosci 31:12461–12470. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1149-11.2011 pmid:21880908
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  216. ↵
    1. Zhigalov A,
    2. Herring JD,
    3. Herpers J,
    4. Bergmann TO,
    5. Jensen O
    (2019) Probing cortical excitability using rapid frequency tagging. Neuroimage 195:59–66. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.03.056 pmid:30930309
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  217. ↵
    1. Zokaei N,
    2. Board AG,
    3. Manohar SG,
    4. Nobre AC
    (2019) Adjusting the aperture of the mind's eye: modulation of the pupillary response by the content of visual working memory. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3354603.
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 40 (1)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 40, Issue 1
2 Jan 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Under the Mind's Hood: What We Have Learned by Watching the Brain at Work
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Under the Mind's Hood: What We Have Learned by Watching the Brain at Work
Anna Christina Nobre, Freek van Ede
Journal of Neuroscience 2 January 2020, 40 (1) 89-100; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0742-19.2019

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Under the Mind's Hood: What We Have Learned by Watching the Brain at Work
Anna Christina Nobre, Freek van Ede
Journal of Neuroscience 2 January 2020, 40 (1) 89-100; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0742-19.2019
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • Human brain imaging
  • Human neurophysiology
  • Historical overview
  • selective attention
  • Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)
  • Electroencephalograhy (EEG)

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • The Importance of Accounting for Movement When Relating Neuronal Activity to Sensory and Cognitive Processes
  • Characterizing Cortex-Wide Dynamics with Wide-Field Calcium Imaging
  • The Property-Based Practical Applications and Solutions of Genetically Encoded Acetylcholine and Monoamine Sensors
Show more TechSights

Subjects

  • 50th Anniversary
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2022 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.