Dissociable neural correlates of spatial attention and response inhibition in spatially driven interference

2020 ◽  
Vol 731 ◽  
pp. 135111
Author(s):  
Kyongmyon Yi ◽  
Chobok Kim
2018 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 426-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Heinzel ◽  
Christian Kaufmann ◽  
Rosa Grützmann ◽  
Robert Hummel ◽  
Julia Klawohn ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasha S. Hansen ◽  
Rachel E. Thayer ◽  
Sarah W. Feldstein Ewing ◽  
Amithrupa Sabbineni ◽  
Angela D. Bryan

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 336-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aishah Abdul Rahman ◽  
Daniel J Carroll ◽  
Kimberly Andrews Espy ◽  
Sandra A Wiebe

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 637-646 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliane Kopf ◽  
Stefan Glöckner ◽  
Martin Schecklmann ◽  
Thomas Dresler ◽  
Michael M. Plichta ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abigail Fiske ◽  
Carina de Klerk ◽  
Katie Y. K. Lui ◽  
Liam H Collins-Jones ◽  
Alexandra Hendry ◽  
...  

Inhibitory control, a core executive function, emerges in infancy and develops rapidly across childhood. Methodological limitations have meant that studies investigating the neural correlates underlying inhibitory control in infancy are rare. Employing functional near-infrared spectroscopy alongside a novel touchscreen task that measures response inhibition, this study aimed to uncover the neural underpinnings of inhibitory control in 10-month-old infants (N = 135). We found that when inhibition is required, the right prefrontal and parietal cortices were more activated than when there is no inhibitory demand. Further, activation in right prefrontal areas was associated with individual differences in response inhibition performance. This demonstrates that inhibitory control in infants as young as 10 months of age is supported by similar brain areas as in older children and adults. With this study we have lowered the age-boundary for localising the neural substrates of response inhibition to the first year of life.


2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-136
Author(s):  
Eva‐Maria Reuter ◽  
Jason B. Mattingley ◽  
Ross Cunnington ◽  
Stephan Riek ◽  
Timothy J. Carroll

2019 ◽  
Vol 122 (4) ◽  
pp. 1538-1554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjna Banerjee ◽  
Shrey Grover ◽  
Suhas Ganesh ◽  
Devarajan Sridharan

Endogenous cueing of attention enhances sensory processing of the attended stimulus (perceptual sensitivity) and prioritizes information from the attended location for guiding behavioral decisions (spatial choice bias). Here, we test whether sensitivity and bias effects of endogenous spatial attention are under the control of common or distinct mechanisms. Human observers performed a multialternative visuospatial attention task with probabilistic spatial cues. Observers’ behavioral choices were analyzed with a recently developed multidimensional signal detection model (the m-ADC model). The model effectively decoupled the effects of spatial cueing on sensitivity from those on spatial bias and revealed striking dissociations between them. Sensitivity was highest at the cued location and not significantly different among uncued locations, suggesting a spotlight-like allocation of sensory resources at the cued location. On the other hand, bias varied systematically with cue validity, suggesting a graded allocation of decisional priority across locations. Cueing-induced modulations of sensitivity and bias were uncorrelated within and across subjects. Bias, but not sensitivity, correlated with key metrics of prioritized decision-making, including reaction times and decision optimality indices. In addition, we developed a novel metric, differential risk curvature, for distinguishing bias effects of attention from those of signal expectation. Differential risk curvature correlated selectively with m-ADC model estimates of bias but not with estimates of sensitivity. Our results reveal dissociable effects of endogenous attention on perceptual sensitivity and choice bias in a multialternative choice task and motivate the search for the distinct neural correlates of each. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Attention is often studied as a unitary phenomenon. Yet, attention can both enhance the perception of important stimuli (sensitivity) and prioritize such stimuli for decision-making (bias). Employing a multialternative spatial attention task with probabilistic cueing, we show that attention affects sensitivity and bias through dissociable mechanisms. Specifically, the effects on sensitivity alone match the notion of an attentional “spotlight.” Our behavioral model enables quantifying component processes of attention, and identifying their respective neural correlates.


2013 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lianne Schmaal ◽  
Leen Joos ◽  
Marte Koeleman ◽  
Dick J. Veltman ◽  
Wim van den Brink ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document