Psychology of attention

2012 ◽  
pp. 245-249
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Coulthard ◽  
Masud Husain
Keyword(s):  
Human Brain ◽  
Parietal Lobe ◽  
Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽  
Good Deal ◽  
Anterior Cingulate ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Temporoparietal Junction ◽  
Flexible Control ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
Brain Processing

Attention is generally taken to be the process by which people are able to concentrate on certain information or processes, while ignoring other events. It appears to be a fundamental attribute of human brain processing, although difficult to pin down in terms of mechanism. Psychologists have attempted to fractionate attention in many different ways, using ingenious behavioural paradigms. In this section we, too, will consider different aspects of attention: selective, phasic and sustained, divided and executive control of attention. However, it would be fair to say that all these aspects of attention do not normally operate in isolation. Instead they interact, and deficiencies in one aspect of attention, for example, in a patient population, often to do not occur in isolation. Functional imaging and lesion studies of attention have proliferated in recent years, attempting to place a neurobiological framework to these varied processes. In general, these studies also tend to confirm the view that attention is likely an emergent property of widespread brain networks, with a special emphasis on frontal and parietal regions of the human brain (Fig. 2.5.2.1). In this discussion we illustrate several aspects of attention with examples particularly from literature on visual attention, which is the most widely studied area, but it should be appreciated that many of the concepts discussed here extend to other domains. In fact, there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that several aspects of attention operate at a supra- or cross-modal level allowing integration of information from different sources. Recent studies suggest there are two fronto-parietal networks: (Fig. 2.5.2.1) a dorsal parieto-frontal network involving the superior parietal lobe (SPL) and dorsal frontal regions such as the frontal eye field (FEF); and a ventral network involving the inferior parietal lobe (IPL), temporoparietal junction (TPJ) and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG). In addition, dorsomedial frontal areas, including the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and pre-supplementary area (pre-SMA) may play a key role in flexible control of attention for strategic behaviour.

scholarly journals When honest people cheat, and cheaters are honest: Cognitive control processes override our moral default

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian P.H. Speer ◽  
Ale Smidts ◽  
Maarten A.S. Boksem
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Control ◽  
Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽  
Neural Mechanism ◽  
Cingulate Cortex ◽  
Posterior Cingulate Cortex ◽  
Anterior Cingulate ◽  
Temporoparietal Junction ◽  
Self Image ◽  
Trial Basis

AbstractEvery day, we are faced with the conflict between the temptation to cheat for financial gains and maintaining a positive image of ourselves as being a ‘good person’. While it has been proposed that cognitive control is needed to mediate this conflict between reward and our moral self-image, the exact role of cognitive control in (dis)honesty remains elusive. Here, we identify this role, by investigating the neural mechanism underlying cheating. We developed a novel task which allows for inconspicuously measuring spontaneous cheating on a trial-by-trial basis in the MRI scanner. We found that activity in the Nucleus Accumbens promotes cheating, particularly for individuals who cheat a lot, while a network consisting of Posterior Cingulate Cortex, Temporoparietal Junction and Medial Prefrontal Cortex promotes honesty, particularly in individuals who are generally honest. Finally, activity in areas associated with Cognitive Control (Anterior Cingulate Cortex and Inferior Frontal Gyrus) helped dishonest participants to be honest, whereas it promoted cheating for honest participants. Thus, our results suggest that cognitive control is not needed to be honest or dishonest per se, but that it depends on an individual’s moral default.

scholarly journals A Comparison of Frontoparietal fMRI Activation During Anti-Saccades and Anti-Pointing

2000 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 1645-1655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason D. Connolly ◽  
Melvyn A. Goodale ◽  
Joseph F. X. Desouza ◽  
Ravi S. Menon ◽  
Tutis Vilis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supplementary Motor Area ◽  
Orienting Response ◽  
Anterior Cingulate ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Response Suppression ◽  
Medial Region ◽  
Frontoparietal Network ◽  
Parietal Area ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
Anti Saccades

An anti-saccade, which is a saccade directed toward a mirror-symmetrical position in the opposite visual field relative to the visual stimulus, involves at least three separate operations: covert orienting, response suppression, and coordinate transformation. The distinction between pro- and anti-saccades can also be applied to pointing. We used fMRI to compare patterns of brain activation during pro- and anti-movements, to determine whether or not additional areas become active during the production of anti-movements. In parietal cortex, an inferior network was active during both saccades and pointing that included three foci along the intraparietal sulcus: 1) a posterior superior parietal area (pSPR), more active during the anti-tasks; 2) a middle inferior parietal area (mIPR), active only during the anti-tasks; and 3) an anterior inferior parietal area (aIPR), equally active for pro- and anti-movement. A superior parietal network was active during pointing but not saccades and included the following: 1) a medial region, active during anti- but not pro-pointing (mSPR); 2) an anterior and medial region, more active during pro-pointing (aSPR); and 3) an anterior and lateral region, equally active for pro- and anti-pointing (lSPR). In frontal cortex, areas selectively active during anti-movement were adjacent and anterior to areas that were active during both the anti- and pro-tasks, i.e., were anterior to the frontal eye field and the supplementary motor area. All saccade areas were also active during pointing. In contrast, foci in the dorsal premotor area, the anterior superior frontal region, and anterior cingulate were active during pointing but not saccades. In summary, pointing with central gaze activates a frontoparietal network that includes the saccade network. The operations required for the production of anti-movements recruited additional frontoparietal areas.

scholarly journals Cognitive control increases honesty in cheaters but cheating in those who are honest

2020 ◽  
Vol 117 (32) ◽  
pp. 19080-19091 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian P. H. Speer ◽  
Ale Smidts ◽  
Maarten A. S. Boksem
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Control ◽  
Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽  
Neural Mechanism ◽  
Cingulate Cortex ◽  
Posterior Cingulate Cortex ◽  
Anterior Cingulate ◽  
Temporoparietal Junction ◽  
Self Image ◽  
Trial Basis

Every day, we are faced with the conflict between the temptation to cheat for financial gains and maintaining a positive image of ourselves as being a “good person.” While it has been proposed that cognitive control is needed to mediate this conflict between reward and our moral self-image, the exact role of cognitive control in (dis)honesty remains elusive. Here we identify this role, by investigating the neural mechanism underlying cheating. We developed a task which allows for inconspicuously measuring spontaneous cheating on a trial-by-trial basis in the MRI scanner. We found that activity in the nucleus accumbens promotes cheating, particularly for individuals who cheat a lot, while a network consisting of posterior cingulate cortex, temporoparietal junction, and medial prefrontal cortex promotes honesty, particularly in individuals who are generally honest. Finally, activity in areas associated with cognitive control (anterior cingulate cortex and inferior frontal gyrus) helped dishonest participants to be honest, whereas it enabled cheating for honest participants. Thus, our results suggest that cognitive control is not needed to be honest or dishonest per se but that it depends on an individual’s moral default.

Visual-Tactile Bottom-Up and Top-Down Attention

2013 ◽  
pp. 183-191
Author(s):  
Qiong Wu ◽  
Chunlin Li ◽  
Satoshi Takahashi ◽  
Jinglong Wu
Keyword(s):  
Visual Attention ◽  
Brain Structure ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Superior Parietal Lobule ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Temporoparietal Junction ◽  
Tactile Attention ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
Processing Mechanism

In recent years, there have been many studies on attention. These studies have found that there are two distinct kinds of neural networks employed for visual attention and tactile attention, respectively. This review summarizes the processing mechanism of these attention-related brain networks. One type is the top-down attention related brain structure, which includes the IPs/SPL (intraparietal sulcus/superior parietal lobule)-FEF (frontal eye field). The other is the bottom-up attention related brain structure, which includes the TPJ (temporoparietal junction)-VFC (ventral frontal cortex). Regarding research into tactile attention, in conclusion, the authors found that tactile attention had a similar neural network to that of visual attention in that there was top-down attention to the relevant IPs-FEF and bottom-up attention to the relevant TPJ-VFC.

Comparison of Memory- and Visually Guided Saccades Using Event-Related fMRI

2004 ◽  
Vol 91 (2) ◽  
pp. 873-889 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.R.G. Brown ◽  
J.F.X. DeSouza ◽  
H. C. Goltz ◽  
K. Ford ◽  
R. S. Menon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽  
Stimulus Presentation ◽  
Delay Period ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Peripheral Stimulus ◽  
Precentral Gyrus ◽  
Visually Guided ◽  
Related Activity ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
Sensory Processes

Previous functional imaging studies have shown an increased hemodynamic signal in several cortical areas when subjects perform memory-guided saccades than that when they perform visually guided saccades using blocked trial designs. It is unknown, however, whether this difference results from sensory processes associated with stimulus presentation, from processes occurring during the delay period before saccade generation, or from an increased motor signal for memory-guided saccades. We conducted fMRI using an event-related paradigm that separated stimulus-related, delay-related, and saccade-related activity. Subjects initially fixated a central cross, whose color indicated whether the trial was a memory- or a visually guided trial. A peripheral stimulus was then flashed at one of 4 possible locations. On memory-guided trials, subjects had to remember this location for the subsequent saccade, whereas the stimulus was a distractor on visually guided trials. Fixation cross disappearance after a delay period was the signal either to generate a memory-guided saccade or to look at a visual stimulus that was flashed on visually guided trials. We found slightly greater stimulus-related activation for visually guided trials in 3 right prefrontal regions and right rostral intraparietal sulcus (IPS). Memory-guided trials evoked greater delay-related activity in right posterior inferior frontal gyrus, right medial frontal eye field, bilateral supplementary eye field, right rostral IPS, and right ventral IPS but not in middle frontal gyrus. Right precentral gyrus and right rostral IPS exhibited greater saccade-related activation on memory-guided trials. We conclude that activation differences revealed by previous blocked experiments have different sources in different areas and that cortical saccade regions exhibit delay-related activation differences.

Quantitative Analysis of Attention and Detection Signals During Visual Search

2003 ◽  
Vol 90 (5) ◽  
pp. 3384-3397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon L. Shulman ◽  
Mark P. McAvoy ◽  
Melanie C. Cowan ◽  
Serguei V. Astafiev ◽  
Aaron P. Tansy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Large Fraction ◽  
Additive Model ◽  
Decision Criterion ◽  
Blood Oxygenation ◽  
Anterior Cingulate ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Temporoparietal Junction ◽  
Flow Models ◽  
Dependent Signal ◽  
Cortical Regions

Prior work has distinguished regions in the intraparietal sulcus (IPs) and frontal eye field (FEF) involved in the voluntary control of attention, from more ventral regions in the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) involved in target detection. The present results show that when subjects search for and detect a visual target stimulus among nontargets, these regions show sensory-, search-, and detection-related signals that both confirm and refine these functional distinctions. The different signals were isolated by an additive model that accounted for a large fraction of BOLD (blood oxygenation level-dependent) signal modulation over the brain. Both IPs and FEF were activated during search through nontargets, consistent with a role in maintaining attention-related signals during search. However, unlike FEF, IPs also showed stimulus-related activations, and may combine signals related to sensory and task-dependent components of salience. Although IPs-FEF showed search-related activations, the TPJ was deactivated during search. TPJ activations were confined to detection-related signals. These results provide a much stronger dissociation between the TPJ and IPs-FEF than previous work, while indicating functional differences between frontal and parietal regions that are often coactivated in studies of attention. Finally, continuous flow models of information processing predict that during search, signals from missed targets should be fed from sensory to associative regions rather than being gated by the decision criterion. Correspondingly, missed targets significantly activated parietal (e.g., right TPJ) and frontal (e.g., anterior insula, anterior cingulate) regions, although with a smaller magnitude than detected targets. Surprisingly, many cortical regions showed equivalent signals from detected targets and the completion of target-absent trials, reflecting a widespread signal unrelated to motor execution.

Frontoparietal Activation With Preparation for Antisaccades

2007 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 1751-1762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew R. G. Brown ◽  
Tutis Vilis ◽  
Stefan Everling
Keyword(s):  
Prefrontal Cortex ◽  
Anterior Cingulate Cortex ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Stimulus Presentation ◽  
Cingulate Cortex ◽  
Anterior Cingulate ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Peripheral Stimulus ◽  
Supplementary Eye Field ◽  
Eye Field

Several current models hold that frontoparietal areas exert cognitive control by biasing task-relevant processing in other brain areas. Previous event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have compared prosaccades and antisaccades, which require subjects to look toward or away from a flashed peripheral stimulus, respectively. These studies found greater activation for antisaccades in frontal and parietal regions at the ends of long (≥6 s) preparatory periods preceding peripheral stimulus presentation. Event-related fMRI studies using short preparatory periods (≤4 s) have not found such activation differences except in the frontal eye field. Here, we identified activation differences associated with short (1-s) preparatory periods by interleaving half trials among regular whole trials in a rapid fMRI design. On whole trials, a colored fixation dot instructed human subjects to make either a prosaccade toward or an antisaccade away from a peripheral visual stimulus. Half trials included only the instruction and not peripheral stimulus presentation or saccade generation. Nonetheless, half trials evoked stronger activation on antisaccades than on prosaccades in the frontal eye field (FEF), supplementary eye field (SEF), left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), intraparietal sulcus (IPS), and precuneus. Greater antisaccade response-related activation was found in FEF, SEF, IPS, and precuneus but not in DLPFC or ACC. These results demonstrate greater preparatory activation for antisaccades versus prosaccades in frontoparietal areas and suggest that prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex are more involved in presetting the saccade network for the antisaccade task than generating the actual antisaccade response.

scholarly journals fMRI Evidence of Acupoints Specificity in Two Adjacent Acupoints

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hua Liu ◽  
Jian-Yang Xu ◽  
Lin Li ◽  
Bao-Ci Shan ◽  
Bin-Bin Nie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Parietal Lobe ◽  
Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽  
Cingulate Cortex ◽  
Posterior Cingulate Cortex ◽  
Anterior Cingulate ◽  
Middle Temporal Gyrus ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
Lentiform Nucleus ◽  
Somatosensory Area ◽  
Acupoint Specificity

Objectives. Acupoint specificity is the foundation of acupuncture treatment. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the acupoint specificity exists in two adjacent acupoints.Design and Setting. Two adjacent real acupoints, LR3 (Taichong) and ST44 (Neiting), and a nearby nonacupoint were selected. Thirty-three health volunteers were divided into three groups in random order, and each group only received acupuncture at one of the three points. While they received acupuncture, fMRI scan was performed.Results. The common cerebral activated areas responding to LR3 and ST44 included the contralateral primary somatosensory area (SI) and ipsilateral cerebellum. Acupuncture at LR3 specifically activated contralateral middle occipital gyrus, ipsilateral medial frontal gyrus, superior parietal lobe, middle temporal gyrus, rostral anterior cingulate cortex (rACC), lentiform nucleus, insula, and contralateral thalamus. Stimulation at ST44 selectively activated ipsilateral secondary somatosensory area (SII), contralateral middle frontal gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus, lingual gyrus, lentiform nucleus, and bilateral posterior cingulate cortex (PCC).Conclusions. Acupuncture at adjacent acupoints elicits distinct cerebral activation patterns, and those specific patterns might be involved in the mechanism of the specific therapeutic effects of different acupoints.

Chronometry of Visual Responses in Frontal Eye Field, Supplementary Eye Field, and Anterior Cingulate Cortex

2005 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 2086-2092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Pouget ◽  
Erik E. Emeric ◽  
Veit Stuphorn ◽  
Kate Reis ◽  
Jeffrey D. Schall
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cingulate Cortex ◽  
Visual Stimulation ◽  
Cingulate Cortex ◽  
Anterior Cingulate ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Visual Response ◽  
Visual Responses ◽  
Supplementary Eye Field ◽  
Latency Variability ◽  
Eye Field

The latency and variability of latency of single-unit responses to identical visual stimulation were measured in the frontal eye field (FEF), supplementary eye field (SEF), and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) of macaque monkeys performing visually guided saccades. The mean visual response latency was significantly shorter in FEF (64 ms) than in SEF (81 ms) or ACC (100 ms), and latency values determined by four methods agreed. The latency variability of the visual response was respectively less in FEF (21 ms) than in SEF (37 ms) or ACC (41 ms). Latency, variability of latency, and magnitude of the visual responses were correlated within FEF and SEF but not ACC. These characteristics of the visual response are consistent with the degree of convergence of visual afferents to these areas and constrain hypotheses about visual processing in the frontal lobe.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document