Symbolic control of visual attention: The role of working memory and attentional control settings.

Author(s):  
Jay Pratt ◽  
Bernhard Hommel
Pain ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 152 (2) ◽  
pp. 453-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valéry Legrain ◽  
Geert Crombez ◽  
Katrien Verhoeven ◽  
André Mouraux

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl W. U. Borgmann ◽  
Evan F. Risko ◽  
Jennifer A. Stolz ◽  
Derek Besner

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (9) ◽  
pp. 1265-1280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Gaspelin ◽  
Steven J. Luck

Researchers have long debated how salient-but-irrelevant features guide visual attention. Pure stimulus-driven theories claim that salient stimuli automatically capture attention irrespective of goals, whereas pure goal-driven theories propose that an individual's attentional control settings determine whether salient stimuli capture attention. However, recent studies have suggested a hybrid model in which salient stimuli attract visual attention but can be actively suppressed by top–down attentional mechanisms. Support for this hybrid model has primarily come from ERP studies demonstrating that salient stimuli, which fail to capture attention, also elicit a distractor positivity (PD) component, a putative neural index of suppression. Other support comes from a handful of behavioral studies showing that processing at the salient locations is inhibited compared with other locations. The current study was designed to link the behavioral and neural evidence by combining ERP recordings with an experimental paradigm that provides a behavioral measure of suppression. We found that, when a salient distractor item elicited the PD component, processing at the location of this distractor was suppressed below baseline levels. Furthermore, the magnitude of behavioral suppression and the magnitude of the PD component covaried across participants. These findings provide a crucial connection between the behavioral and neural measures of suppression, which opens the door to using the PD component to assess the timing and neural substrates of the behaviorally observed suppression.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0242721
Author(s):  
Quanshan Long ◽  
Ting Luo ◽  
Sheng Zhang ◽  
Yuanling Jiang ◽  
Na Hu ◽  
...  

Information in working memory (WM) can guide visual attention towards matched features. While recent work has suggested that cognitive control can act upon WM guidance of visual attention, little is known about how the state of memorized items retaining in WM contribute to its influence over attention. Here, we disentangle the role of inhibition and maintenance on WM-guided attention with a novel delayed match-to-sample dual-task. The results showed that active inhibition facilitated searching by diminishing sensory processing and deterring attentional guidance, indexed by an attenuated P1 amplitude and unaffected N2pc amplitude, respectively. By contrast, active maintenance impaired searching by attentional guidance while sensory processing remained unimpaired, indexed by an enhanced N2pc amplitude and unchanged P1 amplitude, respectively. Furthermore, multivariate pattern analyses could sucessfully decode maintenance and inhibition, suggesting that two states differed in modulating visual attention. We propose that remembered contents may play an anchoring role for attentional guidance, and the state of those contents retaining in WM may directly influence the shifting of attention. The maintenance could guide attention by accessing input information, while the inhibition could deter the shifting of attention by suppressing sensory processing. These findings provide a possible reinterpretation of the influence of WM on attention.


2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. 1403
Author(s):  
Christian N.L. Olivers

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document