Page Not Found
Page not found. Your pixels are in another canvas.
A list of all the posts and pages found on the site. For you robots out there is an XML version available for digesting as well.
Page not found. Your pixels are in another canvas.
About me
This is a page not in th emain menu
Published:
This post is to keep track of whether I have written down something in my notebook every day.
Published:
A place for sharing random thoughts about everything.
Published:
Is it possible to stop browsing social media contents for one month? I really want to give myself a test… Starting March 11th 10:53 pm, I will record if this is possible over the next 30 days…
Published:
1.29.2024
Published:
(Hello! Anybody here?)
Published:
Haven’t posted here for a while!
Just spent a wonderful week in Maine, United States for the Gordon Research Conference (and Seminar) on Neurobiology of Cognition.
Packed schedule every day, but also being hyper every day.
Learned so much from talks, posters, and discussions with faculties, postdocs, and fellow graduate students attending the conference.
Got lots of constructive feedback for my poster!
Also made a bunch of amazing friends!
Looking forward to the next GRC Neurobiology of Cognition (2024)!
Published:
Time flies! It’s already 2022! Happy New Year!
2021 was a transformative year in terms of my understanding of the approaches we should take in neuroscience research. Cognitive neuroscience can’t answer the ultimate questions of human intelligence if we satisfy with just observing new phenomena using whatever techniques.
We need formal models. We need precise descriptions and predictions of neural computing to uncover the mystery of how cognition emerges from the human brain. Mathemathics, physics, and artificial intelligence - these will be helpful to lead us to a really interdisciplinary approach to neuroscience.
Published:
Today I arrived at Oxford! A new life begins! Hooray!
Published:
I am happy to announce that I have graduated from Tsinghua with highest honors and received my Bachelor of Science degree.
I will always love Tsinghua. See here for media coverage of my story at Tsinghua.
Published:
I am happy to announce that I have been selected to receive the Clarendon Scholarship at Oxford. In April, I declined the offer of a Gates Scholarship from the University of Cambridge.
Published:
My new website launched today! I will work hard to keep it updated! Hooray!
Short description of item number 1
Short description of item number 2
Published:
Theeuwes (1991, 1992) found that a salient but task-irrelevant color singleton would increase the response time to the target form singleton, and he proposed that this was because the salient distractor captured attention before it was shifted to the target, which is known as the automatic capture hypothesis. He further suggested the relative saliency of the color singleton would determine whether it could capture attention, but so far there hasn’t been any experiments revealing specifically how different distractor saliency conditions on a continuous spectrum would have an effect on attentional capture. In this research, we examined this question within multiple attention-guiding dimensions, including color, size and orientation (Wolfe & Horowitz, 2004).
Published:
We showed a saliency-dependent mechanism of distractor suppression and gave neurobiological interpretations based on the V1 saliency theory(Li, 1999, 2002).
Published:
I presented my findings in this paper.
Published:
Recent studies have shown spatial heterogeneity in the perception of multiple feature dimensions, here we show that attentional capture would also exhibit spatial heterogeneity across display locations.
Published:
We reported how working memory (WM) and long-term memory (LTM) traces can guide external spatial attention when retro-cued before a perception task, and how timing has a critical influence on the guidance from WM and LTM.
Published:
Although theoretical models have highlighted the close relation between long-term memory (LTM) and attention, we have little understanding of how the processes of orienting, selecting, and prioritising relevant contents in long-term memory unfold. Here we build on findings and methods developed to study internal selective attention in working memory (WM), to show that selection and prioritisation of contents from long-term memory improves recall of stored information and guides perception in a secondary task. We developed a task in which participants hold separate colour-location combinations in LTM and WM. Subsequently, a colour cue (‘retro-cue’) would indicate the identity of the target that would be probed in a memory recall task after a short delay. Critically, in half of the trials, following the delay participants would instead have to complete a perceptual detection task in which stimuli unrelated to memory contents briefly flash on the screen. Our results show that selection and prioritisation of contents from both long-term and working memory not only improve memory recall, but also enhance perceptual sensitivity when the probed location in the perception task is matched with the currently prioritised location in LTM/WM. Our method of studying internal selective attention in long-term memory opens the door to exploring our flexible and adaptive usage of memories in service of behaviour.We reported how working memory (WM) and long-term memory (LTM) traces can guide external spatial attention when retro-cued before a perception task, and how timing has a critical influence on the guidance from WM and LTM.
Published:
Attention can be directed not only to sensory stimuli from the external environment but also to internal representations in memory. While attentional selection in working memory (WM) has been widely studied, we know less about how we focus on contents within long-term memory (LTM). In two experiments, we directly compared the consequences of selecting items in LTM and WM, examining influences on subsequent recall and perception. Participants first learned the features of two LTM items during a learning phase. In the subsequent phase, participants viewed two items with features different from the LTM items and encoded these into WM. After a delay, a retrocue informed participants which item they should select from either the LTM or WM items or, was uninformative. On half of the trials, participants were prompted to recall the retrocued item. Critically, on the other trials, participants performed a perceptual discrimination task on a briefly presented and masked sensory array unrelated to the memory contents. The item to discriminate appeared equiprobably at the four locations, thereby overlapping with retrocued LTM or WM locations on 25% of the trials. In both experiments, informative retrocues facilitated recall speed for LTM and WM contents. Retrocuing items in LTM and WM also incidentally improved perceptual discrimination for visual items coinciding with the location of retrocued items, despite retrocues having no sensory predictive value. Although the behavioural benefits showed a similar pattern, eye tracking suggested functionally dissociable mechanisms for orienting attention in LTM and WM. Significant gaze biases followed retrocues indicating items in WM but not in LTM. Overall, our study introduces an experimental approach for comparing the processes and consequences of attentional orienting in LTM and WM. We observe memory and perceptual benefits for attentional orienting in both memory domains but through partially dissociable mechanisms.
Published:
Research has increasingly emphasized the ability to orient attention selectively to prioritise internal contents for retrieval - in both workingmemory (WM) and long-term memory (LTM). However, little is known about the potential degree of overlap between mechanisms for internal attention in WM and LTM. We developed a task for comparing shifts of internal attention in WM and LTM for retrieving equivalent stimulus attributes. Eye tracking and EEG recordings from human participants (N = 30) tracked oculomotor and neural signals triggered by retrospective attention cues (retrocues) that prioritised object features of WM or LTM items on a trial-by-trial basis. The eye-tracking results confirmed our recent observation that gaze biases toward the attended item were more pronounced in WM than LTM. The EEG data revealed striking differences in neural processes following retrocues prioritising WM and LTM items. Replicating previous findings, transient lateralization of alpha power (8-12Hz) at posterior sites occurred for shifts of attention in WM, but no such effects occurred for attention within LTM. Instead, frontal modulation oftheta power (4-8 Hz) occurred during shifts of attention in LTM but not in WM. Further dissociable markers of internal shifts of attention in WM and LTM were observed in the event-related potentials. Our findings show that the robust consequences of orienting selective attention in WM and LTM occur through different routes, thus also providing valuable insights into the long-debated relationship between these two memory systems.
Published:
Attention can be directed towards internally generated representations of the past, a process known as internal attention. Internal attention can operate over contents of both working memory (WM) and long-term memory (LTM)**, **but far less is known in terms of the neural signatures when orienting attention in LTM compared to WM. To answer this question, we recorded EEG signals from participants engaged in a behavioral task where retrospective attention cues prioritized either a WM item that switched features from trial to trial, or an LTM item that had been previously memorized. Following a brief delay, participants reproduced the cued item. Using multivariate pattern analysis, we were able to decode the timescale of the cued item (WM vs. LTM) during the delay. Furthermore, left vs. right items were better decodable for WM, whereas LTM representations seemed to show less lateralization. Event-related potentials revealed higher contralateral responses at posterior sites for WM items, but no such lateralization for LTM items. Time-frequency analysis indicated alpha power (8-12 Hz) lateralization during a WM delay but not LTM. However, non-lateralized theta power (3-7 Hz) is found to be higher during an LTM delay compared to WM, hinting at distinct retrieval processes for LTM. To sum up, our findings suggest that orienting attention to LTM contents involves different neural mechanisms compared to WM. Selecting an item in LTM does not necessarily bring it back to the same state of a WM item, indicating potentially dissociable representational formats for WM and LTM contents.
2021
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
Download here
2023
Under review at Nature Communications
Download here
2024
Proceedings of the 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-24)
Download here
2024
NeurIPS 2024 Workshop on Behavioral Machine Learning
Download here
Project Leader, Cognitive Neuroscience Lab, Tsinghua University, 2018
Research Assistant, Perception and Action Lab, Universityof California, Berkeley, 2019
Visiting Researcher, Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, VU Amsterdam, 2020
Research Intern, Visual Attention Lab, Harvard University, 2020
PhD Student, Brain and Cognition Lab, University of Oxford, 2021
PhD Student, Yale University, 2023
The hippocampus serves a key role in memory acquisition and consolidation, yet it is unknown whether the hippocampus stores raw sensory inputs or merely generative reconstructions of those inputs. In this paper we examined these competing hypotheses of memory representation in the hippocampus. To do so we modeled the hippocampus as a modern Hopfield network and the entorhinal cortex as a variational autoencoder (VAE). We used Mitsuba 3 to generate a Cornell box dataset. In our first model, we passed these scenes directly into our Hopfield network and trained our VAE on the Hopfield network’s output when prompted by stimulus. In the second, the model first probabilistically inferred latent parameters for the observations and generated reconstructed observations which were then passed into the Hopfield network to aid in the training of our VAE. We tested the capacity of our models for generative recall of these scenes and found reliable minimization of reconstruction error during recall in both models. We concluded that either representation scheme or a combination of the two might be at work in the human brain. Future studies should explore implementing features such as forgetting and recall vulnerability in our base model and comparing model performance to human performance on recall tasks.
Github page: Bayesian Telephone: Memory Consolidation and Recall as Generative Processes
PhD Student, Yale University, 2024