Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Conscious access is the birth of a stable bound state of a cloud function once both landscape depth and attention cross thresholds.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 09:45 UTC pith:PFA67LOH

load-bearing objection Clean non-Hermitian bound-state analysis that maps thresholds onto the SPC hierarchy by construction of the dual-role ansatz; competent math, limited external constraint. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08302 v1 pith:PFA67LOH submitted 2026-07-09 q-bio.NC nlin.AO

A Non-Hermitian Potential Well Formalism for Conscious--Preconscious--Subliminal Processing

Vasily Lubashevskiy , Ihor Lubashevsky This is my paper
classification q-bio.NC nlin.AO
keywords Global Neuronal Workspacecloud functionnon-Hermitian Schrödinger equationbound statesconscious accesssubliminal–preconscious–conscioustop-down attentionneural field theory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper offers a single dynamical story for how a sensory stimulus can remain subliminal, become preconscious, or reach consciousness. Early sensory stages shape a complex-valued landscape inside a Hilbert space whose elements are cloud functions—high-level, holistic representations of what is being perceived. The cloud function then evolves under a nonlinear Schrödinger-type equation in imaginary time whose Hamiltonian is deliberately non-Hermitian: its Hermitian part pulls the cloud toward landscape minima (recognition), while its anti-Hermitian part spreads the cloud across the state space (broadcasting). Analytical thresholds and numerical simulations show that a stable bound state appears only when both the depth of the landscape well and the allocated attention exceed critical values; those two thresholds cleanly partition the parameter plane into the classic subliminal–preconscious–conscious hierarchy. The framework therefore treats conscious access as an ordinary dynamical transition rather than a separate computational stage.

Core claim

Conscious access is identified with the emergence of a stable bound state of the cloud function at a minimum of the Global Neuronal Workspace landscape. That bound state exists and is stable only when both the rescaled well depth U and the attention degree A simultaneously exceed thresholds fixed by the ratio g = c/A; the same thresholds recover the three classical regimes of sensory processing.

What carries the argument

The priority Hamiltonian split into Hermitian and anti-Hermitian pieces (Eqs. 5–6) inside a norm-preserving nonlinear Schrödinger equation in imaginary time. The Hermitian piece supplies dissipative localization at landscape minima (recognition); the anti-Hermitian piece supplies spatial spreading (broadcasting). Their competition produces the bound-state threshold that marks conscious access.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that the real part of the Hamiltonian really means recognition and the imaginary part really means broadcasting; if that dual-role assignment is wrong, the link between stable bound states and conscious access collapses.

What would settle it

Measure whether the ignition threshold for conscious report of a fixed stimulus rises exactly as predicted when top-down attention is systematically reduced while bottom-up stimulus strength is held constant, and whether the transition remains discontinuous (first-order-like) rather than continuous.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a phenomenological model of the Global Neuronal Workspace in which early sensory processing generates a complex-valued landscape Ω(x) that governs high-level representations encoded as cloud functions Ψ on the Hilbert space L^{2}(R^N). Dynamics follow a nonlinear imaginary-time Schrödinger equation with a non-Hermitian, non-normal priority Hamiltonian Ĥ = Ĥ' + i Ĥ'' plus a norm-preserving Lotka–Volterra term. The Hermitian part is assigned to dissipative localization (recognition) at landscape minima and the anti-Hermitian part to spatial spreading (broadcasting). For a modified Pöschl–Teller well the ground-state eigenfunction and eigenvalue are obtained in closed form; the conditions Re µ > 0 and Re E_{0} > 0 define critical curves in the (U, g = c/A) plane that partition parameter space into three regimes labeled subliminal, preconscious and conscious. Conscious access is identified with the emergence of a stable bound state once both well depth U and attention degree A exceed thresholds. Numerical Crank–Nicolson/Adams–Bashforth simulations illustrate localization, the stepwise transition at A_c, and the instability of states near landscape maxima.

Significance. If the dual-role ansatz and the bound-state o conscious-access identification are accepted, the work supplies a compact, analytically tractable dynamical bridge between early sensory encoding, top-down attention and the classical subliminal–preconscious–conscious taxonomy inside a single non-Hermitian neural-field equation. Concrete strengths include the closed-form ground state (Eqs. 10–11), the explicit phase diagram (Fig. 2) with two critical curves, and reproducible numerical confirmation of the winner-takes-all localization and the discontinuous jump at A_c. These features make the framework potentially useful as a phenomenological scaffold for further modeling of GNW ignition, working-memory power laws and change-of-mind phenomena already treated in the authors’ earlier papers. The result remains outside mainstream consensus, yet the mathematics is self-consistent and the predictions (threshold surfaces in the (U,A) plane) are in principle falsifiable.

major comments (4)
  1. Sec. 2.1, Eqs. (5)–(6): The dual-role ansatz that assigns the Hermitian piece Ĥ' = A(-ℓ^{2} abla^{2} + Ω) to “recognition via dissipative localization” and the anti-Hermitian piece Ĥ'' = -c(ℓ^{2} abla^{2} + Ω) to “broadcasting via spatial spreading” is postulated, not derived from measured connectivity, predictive-coding error dynamics or any other neural observable. Because the subsequent taxonomy mapping rests entirely on this assignment, the claim that the model “reproduces” the SPC hierarchy is largely by construction of the operator rather than an independent dynamical consequence.
  2. Sec. 2.2, Eqs. (12)–(16) and Fig. 2: The identification of the locus Re E_{0} = 0 with the preconscious–conscious boundary (and of the existence of a stable bound state with conscious access) is purely interpretive. No independent criterion—neural, psychophysical or information-theoretic—is supplied that would allow one to test whether the mathematical transition actually corresponds to global ignition or conscious report rather than some other regime of the same non-normal operator.
  3. The short-range approximation retained in Ĥ (only -ℓ^{2} abla^{2} and the local product ΩΨ) and the specific choice of the modified Pöschl–Teller well are presented without quantitative justification or sensitivity analysis. Because the critical curves U_c^{(1)}(g) and U_c^{(2)}(g) depend on these modeling choices, the claimed universality of the three-regime partition remains untested within the manuscript.
  4. Sec. 3: The numerical illustrations (Figs. 3–5) confirm only that the chosen non-normal operator possesses the expected bound-state transition and that maxima do not support stable bound states. They do not confront the model with any empirical signature of conscious access (e.g., ignition latency, attentional blink thresholds, or masking data), so the phenomenological mapping is not independently validated.
minor comments (5)
  1. The linear approximation G(A) = A is introduced without discussion of the range of validity of the saturating normalization models it is meant to approximate; a brief remark on higher-order corrections would clarify the regime of applicability.
  2. Figure captions for Figs. 3–5 are minimal; adding the precise parameter values (U, A, c, µ, β) used in each panel would improve reproducibility.
  3. The claim that the nonlinear term implements “winner-takes-all” competition among non-orthogonal eigenfunctions is verified only numerically; a short analytic argument or reference to known results for non-normal Lotka–Volterra-type systems would strengthen the presentation.
  4. Several self-citations appear as arXiv preprints; once those works are published the references should be updated for archival stability.
  5. Notation for the attention field A(x,t) is introduced and then immediately specialized to a constant A; a clearer statement that the spatially varying case is left for future work would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

Dual-role non-Hermitian ansatz is postulated so localization requires both depth and attention; SPC hierarchy is recovered by labeling the resulting phase-diagram regions with the pre-existing taxonomy.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. 2.1, Eqs. (5)–(6) and preceding paragraphs]
    "We associate the Hermitian component ˆH ′ with the recognition process driven by top-down attention. This process is interpreted as the localization of the cloud function Ψ near the minima of Ω(x). ... Combining these considerations, we adopt the ansatz ˆH ′ =A(x,t)[−ℓ2∇2x + Ω(x)]. Whereas the Hermitian component ˆH ′ promotes localization of the cloud function Ψ near the minima of Ω(x), the anti-Hermitian component i ˆH ′′ promotes its delocalization and is associated with the broadcasting of neural activity across the GNW. ... We approximate the operator i ˆH ′′ by the ansatz ˆH ′′ =[−cηℓ2∇2"

    Recognition is defined as the dissipative localization produced by the Hermitian piece, and broadcasting as the spreading produced by the anti-Hermitian piece. The claim that these parts “generate complementary processes” of recognition and broadcasting is therefore true by the definitions built into the ansatz itself, not by any independent derivation from neural data or connectivity.

  2. renaming known result [Sec. 2.2, text after Eqs. (12)–(15) and the three-regime enumeration]
    "Accordingly, three distinct regimes of sensory information processing can be identified, depending on the values of the attention degree A and the well depth U, reflecting the structure of the SPC hierarchy. I. Subliminal processing. When U < U(2)c(c), the external stimulus is too weak for the corresponding fragment of the GNW landscape—the potential well (7)—to support the emergence of its high-level representation in the GNW. II. Supraliminal unattended processing. When U > U(2)c(c) but A < Ac ... III. Supraliminal attended processing. When U > U(2)c(c) and A > Ac ..."

    The three mathematical regimes defined by the critical curves Re µ = 0 and Re E0 = 0 (no ground state; unstable ground state; stable ground state) are simply renamed with the classical Dehaene taxonomy. The assertion that the dynamics “reproduces the subliminal–preconscious–conscious hierarchy” is therefore a re-labeling of the phase diagram that the dual-role ansatz was constructed to produce, not an independent result.

  3. self citation load bearing [Introduction; Sec. 2.1 opening; Conclusion]
    "We recently proposed a phenomenological description of sensory processing [9] ... We subsequently generalized this framework [14] by interpreting cloud functions as a special class of complex-valued neural fields and the GNW as a Hilbert space ... Following [9, 14], we describe the dynamics of the cloud function Ψ by the equation (3) ... Based on our previously developed neural field formalism [9, 14], we proposed a phenomenological description of the Global Neuronal Workspace (GNW) as a Hilbert space ..."

    The cloud-function representation on L2(RN), the nonlinear Schrödinger-type equation with Lotka–Volterra norm-preserving term, and the notion of an effective GNW landscape are load-bearing premises taken exclusively from the authors’ own prior preprints. The present paper’s identification of bound states with conscious access rests on this self-referential foundation without external derivation or independent validation of those constructs.

full rationale

The paper is an openly phenomenological construction. Its central claim—that conscious access is the emergence of a stable bound state of the cloud function once both landscape depth U and attention A exceed thresholds, thereby reproducing the subliminal–preconscious–conscious hierarchy—follows by design from two moves: (1) the dual-role ansatz that defines the Hermitian piece as recognition (dissipative localization) and the anti-Hermitian piece as broadcasting (spreading), and (2) the subsequent labeling of the three mathematical regimes of the (U,g) phase diagram with Dehaene’s pre-existing taxonomy. The underlying cloud-function Hilbert-space formalism and nonlinear imaginary-time equation are imported wholesale via self-citation to the authors’ own prior preprints. The pure mathematics of the non-normal operator (existence and stability of the ground state, numerical evolution) is non-circular, but the claimed dynamical explanation of conscious access is not an independent prediction; it is the ansatz plus re-labeling. Score 6 reflects partial circularity concentrated on the interpretive core rather than total definitional collapse.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 4 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of phenomenological postulates (Hilbert-space cloud functions, complex landscape generated by early processing, dual-role non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, attention as multiplicative gain, Lotka–Volterra norm preservation) that are not derived from first principles or from new data. Free parameters (especially the non-Hermiticity strength c and the well depth U) are chosen by hand to produce the desired phase diagram. The invented entities (cloud function, GNW landscape, priority Hamiltonian) originate in the authors’ prior work and lack independent experimental handles outside that program.

free parameters (5)
  • non-Hermiticity strength c (and ratio g = c/A)
    Set equal for the two anti-Hermitian coefficients and fixed to c = 2 in all simulations; the entire phase diagram and the critical attention A_c are functions of g = c/A. No independent measurement constrains c.
  • well depth U (rescaled Ud)
    Treated as a free control parameter whose value relative to the critical curves U_c^{(1)}(g) and U_c^{(2)}(g) decides the processing regime. Not fitted to any neural or behavioral data.
  • attention degree A (0 ≤ A ≤ 1)
    Identified with attentional gain under a linear approximation of a saturating function; the critical value A_c is read off the phase diagram rather than measured.
  • spatial scales ℓ and d
    ℓ is the irreducible perceptual uncertainty length; d is the well width. Their ratio rescales time and depth; both are free phenomenological lengths.
  • characteristic time τ ≈ 200 ms
    Taken from the literature as the high-level visual processing scale; used only to set units and not varied.
axioms (7)
  • ad hoc to paper The GNW is the Hilbert space L²(R^N) whose elements are cloud functions Ψ that encode high-level stimulus representations and inherit the spatial structure of mental images.
    Introduced in the authors’ prior work and restated in Sec. 2.1; not derived from neural data.
  • ad hoc to paper Early sensory processing generates an effective complex-valued landscape Ω(x) that thereafter governs high-level dynamics.
    Core bridge postulate of the framework (Abstract and Sec. 1); phenomenological.
  • ad hoc to paper Cloud-function evolution is given by the nonlinear imaginary-time Schrödinger equation τ ∂Ψ/∂t = −ĤΨ + ⟨Ψ|Ĥ|Ψ⟩Ψ with a non-Hermitian, non-normal Hamiltonian.
    Eq. (3); chosen so that the nonlinear term preserves norm and permits nonlocal interactions.
  • ad hoc to paper The Hermitian part of Ĥ drives dissipative localization at landscape minima (recognition) while the anti-Hermitian part drives spatial spreading (broadcasting).
    Explicit dual-role assignment in Sec. 2.1 and Fig. 1; the central interpretive step.
  • domain assumption Top-down attention multiplies the Hermitian piece by a scalar A ≤ 1 (linear approximation of a saturating gain).
    Adopted from the normalization model of attention (Reynolds & Heeger) and stated in the Introduction.
  • ad hoc to paper A short-range approximation retaining only −ℓ²∇² and the local product ΩΨ is sufficient for the priority Hamiltonian.
    Sec. 2.1; long-range connectivity is acknowledged but discarded for tractability.
  • ad hoc to paper The modified Pöschl–Teller potential is an adequate local model of a single landscape minimum.
    Eq. (7); chosen for analytic solvability.
invented entities (4)
  • cloud function Ψ(x,t) no independent evidence
    purpose: Encodes the high-level, holistic representation of a stimulus as a normalized complex field on perceptual state space.
    Central dynamical variable; introduced in the authors’ earlier papers and reused without new independent evidence.
  • complex-valued GNW landscape Ω(x) no independent evidence
    purpose: Acts as the dynamical bridge between early sensory encoding and high-level cloud-function evolution; its minima are attractors for recognition.
    Postulated effective potential generated by early processing; no direct neural measurement of a complex landscape is cited.
  • priority Hamiltonian Ĥ = Ĥ' + i Ĥ'' no independent evidence
    purpose: Non-normal operator whose Hermitian and anti-Hermitian parts implement recognition and broadcasting, respectively.
    Constructed by ansatz (Eqs. 5–6) to produce the desired dual dynamics; not derived from measured connectivity.
  • bound cloud-function state as conscious access no independent evidence
    purpose: Identifies the mathematical object (stable ground-state eigenfunction of the non-Hermitian operator) with the psychological event of conscious access.
    The load-bearing interpretive claim of the paper; no independent neural signature of such a bound state is provided.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 15132 in / 4373 out tokens · 72180 ms · 2026-07-10T09:45:21.101507+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose a phenomenological model of the Global Neuronal Workspace (GNW) in which early sensory processing generates an effective complex-valued landscape governing the dynamics of high-level stimulus representations. This landscape provides a dynamical bridge between sensory encoding and conscious access, enabling both processes to be described within a unified framework. High-level representations are encoded in a cloud function defined on a Hilbert space over a perceptual state space, thereby combining the holistic structure of mental images with a neural implementation. Its dynamics is governed by a nonlinear Schr\"odinger-type equation in imaginary time with a non-Hermitian, non-normal Hamiltonian and a nonlinear Lotka--Volterra-type term that preserves norm and enables spatially nonlocal interactions. The Hermitian and anti-Hermitian parts of the Hamiltonian generate complementary processes: recognition via dissipative localization at minima of the GNW landscape and information broadcasting via spatial spreading across the state space. The resulting dynamics reproduces the subliminal--preconscious--conscious hierarchy of sensory processing. Conscious access corresponds to the emergence of a bound state, which occurs only when both the GNW landscape depth and the degree of top-down attention exceed threshold values. The resulting framework provides a tractable dynamical description linking sensory processing, attention, and conscious access within a unified dynamical setting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08302 by Ihor Lubashevsky, Vasily Lubashevskiy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the dual role of the GNW landscape in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the phase diagram in the (U, g) parameter plane obtained numerically. The region bounded from below by the blue solid curve, Re E0 = 0, corresponds to the stable ground-state eigenfunction Ψ0(η), namely, U > U (2) c (g), ⇐= Re E0(U, g) = 0. (13) Accordingly, the ground-state eigenfunction Ψ0(η) exists but is unstable in the region between the blue solid and dashed curves, i.e., for U (1) c (g) < U < … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of the cloud-function dynamics corresponding to the supraliminal attended processing regime. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the stepwide emergence of stimulus representations in the GNW when the attention degree [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of the cloud-function dynamics near a maximum of the GNW landscape, modeled by the potential ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Dehaene, M

    S. Dehaene, M. Kerszberg, J.-P. Changeux, A neu- ronal model of a global workspace in effortful cognitive tasks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (24) (1998) 14529–14534.doi:10.1073/pnas.95. 24.14529

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.95 1998

  2. [2]

    G. A. Mashour, P. Roelfsema, J.-P. Changeux, S. Dehaene, Conscious processing and the global neuronal workspace hypothesis, Neuron 105 (5) (2020) 776–798.doi:10. 1016/j.neuron.2020.01.026

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Ferrante, U

    O. Ferrante, U. Gorska-Klimowska, S. Henin, R. Hirschhorn, A. Khalaf, A. Lepauvre, L. Liu, D. Richter, Y . Vidal, N. Bonacchi, T. Brown, P. Sripad, M. Armen- dariz, K. Bendtz, T. Ghafari, D. Hetenyi, J. Jeschke, C. Kozma, D. R. Mazumder, S. Montenegro, A. Seedat, A. Sharafeldin, S. Yang, S. Baillet, D. J. Chalmers, R. M. Cichy, F. Fallon, T. I. Panagiotar...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08888-1 2025

  4. [4]

    A. K. Seth, T. Bayne, Theories of consciousness, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 23 (7) (2022) 439–452.doi:10. 1038/s41583-022-00587-4

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Mudrik, M

    L. Mudrik, M. Boly, S. Dehaene, S. M. Fleming, V . Lamme, A. Seth, L. Melloni, Unpacking the com- plexities of consciousness: Theories and reflections, Neu- roscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 170 (2025) 106053. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106053

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106053 2025

  6. [6]

    Dehaene, J.-P

    S. Dehaene, J.-P. Changeux, L. Naccache, J. Sackur, C. Sergent, Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal pro- cessing: a testable taxonomy, Trends in Cognitive Sci- ences 10 (5) (2006) 204–211.doi:10.1016/j.tics. 2006.03.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tics 2006

  7. [7]

    Kouider, S

    S. Kouider, S. Dehaene, Levels of processing during non- conscious perception: a critical review of visual mask- ing, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362 (1481) (2007) 857–875.doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2093

    work page doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2093 2007

  8. [8]

    Changeux, M

    J.-P. Changeux, M. Farisco, The Global Neuronal Workspace as a multilevel model of conscious process- ing, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 30 (6) (2026) 477–479. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2026.03.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tics.2026.03.004 2026

  9. [9]

    Lubashevsky, V

    I. Lubashevsky, V . Lubashevskiy, Towards naturalized phenomenology: Dynamics of space-time clouds and power law of working memory, Cognitive Systems Re- search 92 (2025) 101374.doi:10.1016/j.cogsys. 2025.101374

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cogsys 2025

  10. [10]

    Friston, A theory of cortical responses, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360 (1456) (2005) 815–836.doi:10.1098/rstb.2005

    K. Friston, A theory of cortical responses, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360 (1456) (2005) 815–836.doi:10.1098/rstb.2005. 1622

    work page doi:10.1098/rstb.2005 2005

  11. [11]

    Clark, Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (03) (2013) 181–204.doi:10.1017/ S0140525X12000477

    A. Clark, Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (03) (2013) 181–204.doi:10.1017/ S0140525X12000477

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    Lubashevsky, N

    I. Lubashevsky, N. Plavinska, Physics of the Human Tem- porality: Complex Present, Springer International Pub- lishing AG, Cham, Switzerland, 2021.doi:10.1007/ 978-3-030-82612-3. 7

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    P. L. Smith, E. A. Corbett, S. D. Lilburn, S. Kyllings- bæk, The power law of visual working memory character- izes attention engagement, Psychological Review 125 (3) (2018) 435–451.doi:10.1037/rev0000098

    work page doi:10.1037/rev0000098 2018

  14. [14]

    A Quantum-Analogue Formalism for Modeling Supraliminal Information Processing

    V . Lubashevskiy, I. Lubashevsky, A quantum-analogue formalism for modeling supraliminal information pro- cessing, arXiv:2605.25214 [q-bio.NC] (2026).doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2605.25214

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Resulaj, R

    A. Resulaj, R. Kiani, D. M. Wolpert, M. N. Shadlen, Changes of mind in decision-making, Nature 461 (2009) 263–266.doi:10.1038/nature08275

    work page doi:10.1038/nature08275 2009

  16. [16]

    Wickens, Attention: Theory, principles, models and applications, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 37 (5) (2021) 403–417.doi:10.1080/ 10447318.2021.1874741

    C. Wickens, Attention: Theory, principles, models and applications, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 37 (5) (2021) 403–417.doi:10.1080/ 10447318.2021.1874741

    work page arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    R. N. Denison, Visual temporal attention from perception to computation, Nature Reviews Psychology 3 (4) (2024) 261–274.doi:10.1038/s44159-024-00294-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s44159-024-00294-0 2024

  18. [18]

    J. H. Reynolds, D. J. Heeger, The normalization model of attention, Neuron 61 (2) (2009) 168–185.doi:10.1016/ j.neuron.2009.01.002

    work page 2009

  19. [19]

    Schwedhelm, B

    P. Schwedhelm, B. S. Krishna, S. Treue, An extended nor- malization model of attention accounts for feature-based attentional enhancement of both response and coher- ence gain, PLOS Computational Biology 12 (12) (2016) e1005225.doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005225

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005225 2016

  20. [20]

    R. F. Betzel, D. S. Bassett, Specificity and robustness of long-distance connections in weighted, interareal connec- tomes, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (21) (2018) E4880–E4889.doi:10.1073/pnas. 1720186115

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas 2018

  21. [21]

    T. K. Sato, Long-range connections enrich cortical com- putations, Neuroscience Research 162 (2021) 1–12.doi: 10.1016/j.neures.2020.05.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neures.2020.05.004 2021

  22. [22]

    Y . Wang, J. Royer, B.-y. Park, R. V os de Wael, S. Lariv- ière, S. Tavakol, R. Rodriguez-Cruces, C. Paquola, S.-J. Hong, D. S. Margulies, J. Smallwood, S. L. Valk, A. C. Evans, B. C. Bernhardt, Long-range functional connec- tions mirror and link microarchitectural and cognitive hi- erarchies in the human brain, Cerebral Cortex 33 (5) (2022) 1782–1798.doi...

    work page doi:10.1093/cercor/bhac172 2022

  23. [23]

    Çevik, M

    D. Çevik, M. Gadella, c. Kuru, J. Negro, Resonances and antibound states for the Pöschl–Teller potential: Ladder operators and SUSY partners, Physics Letters A 380 (18-

    work page

  24. [24]

    2016.03.003

    (2016) 1600–1609.doi:10.1016/j.physleta. 2016.03.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physleta 2016

  25. [25]

    Flügge, Practical Quantum Mechanics, Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1971

    S. Flügge, Practical Quantum Mechanics, Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1971. 8

    work page 1971