scholarly journals Decoding Attention Control and Selection in Visual Spatial Attention

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiangfei Hong ◽  
Ke Bo ◽  
Sreenivasan Meyyapan ◽  
Shanbao Tong ◽  
Mingzhou Ding

AbstractEvent-related potentials (ERPs) are used extensively to investigate the neural mechanisms of attention control and selection. The commonly applied univariate ERP approach, however, has left important questions inadequately answered. Here, we addressed two questions by applying multivariate pattern classification to multichannel ERPs in two spatial-cueing experiments (N = 56 in total): (1) impact of cueing strategies (instructional vs. probabilistic) and (2) neural and behavioral effects of individual differences. Following the cue onset, the decoding accuracy (cue left vs. cue right) began to rise above chance level earlier and remained higher in instructional cueing (∼80 ms) than in probabilistic cueing (∼160 ms), suggesting that unilateral attention focus leads to earlier and more distinct formation of the attentional set. A similar temporal sequence was also found for target-related processing (cued targets vs. uncued targets), suggesting earlier and stronger attention selection under instructional cueing. Across the two experiments, individuals with higher decoding accuracy during ∼460-660 ms post-cue showed higher magnitude of attentional modulation of target-evoked N1 amplitude, suggesting that better formation of anticipatory attentional state leads to better target processing. During target processing, individual difference in decoding accuracy was positively associated with behavioral performance (reaction time), suggesting that stronger selection of task-relevant information leads to better behavioral performance. Taken together, multichannel ERPs combined with machine learning decoding yields new insights into attention control and selection that are not possible with the univariate ERP approach, and along with the univariate ERP approach, provides a more comprehensive methodology to the study of visual spatial attention.

1989 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 94-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.-F. Münte ◽  
H.-J. Heinze ◽  
M.B. Scholz ◽  
S.M. Bartusch ◽  
D.E. Dietrich

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pia Ley ◽  
Brigitte Röder

The present study investigated whether effects of movement preparation and visual spatial attention on visual processing can be dissociated. Movement preparation and visual spatial attention were manipulated orthogonally in a dual-task design. Ten participants covertly prepared unimanual lateral arm movements to one hemifield, while attending to visual stimuli presented either in the same or in the hemifield opposite to the movement goal. Event-related potentials to task-irrelevant visual stimuli were analysed. Both joint and distinct modulations of visual ERPs by visual spatial attention and movement preparation were observed: The latencies of all analysed peaks (P1, N1, P2) were shorter for matching (in terms of direction of attention and movement) versus non-matching sensory–motor conditions. The P1 amplitude, as well, depended on the sensory–motor matching: The P1 was larger for non-matching compared to matching conditions. By contrast, the N1 amplitude showed additive effects of sensory attention and movement preparation: with attention and movement preparation directed towards the visual stimulus the N1 was largest, with both directed opposite to the stimulus the N1 was smallest. P2 amplitudes, instead, were only modulated by sensory attention. The present data show that movement preparation and sensory spatial attention are tightly linked and interrelated, showing joint modulations throughout stimulus processing. At the same time, however, our data argue against the idea of identity of the two systems. Instead, sensory spatial attention and movement preparation seem to be processed at least partially independently, though still exerting a combined influence on visual stimulus processing.


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 703-721 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandi Lee Drisdelle ◽  
Pierre Jolicoeur

We bisected the sequence of processing into operations taking place before or after the engagement of visual–spatial attention during a difficult search task using event-related potentials. We were able to assign variance in RTs associated with experimental factor effects to phases of processing by examining stimulus-locked (SLpcN) and response-locked (RLpcN) posterior contralateral negativity. Participants searched for a gray square with one gap among gray squares with two gaps. The number of displayed items (set size) and the number of response alternatives were varied. Both experimental manipulations affected the onset latency of the RLpcN, whereas the SLpcN showed small or no latency effects, suggesting they had effects after the initial deployment of attention. Moreover, amplitude effects in the RLpcN and SLpcN behaved similarly. Most importantly, different aspects of the RLpcN dissociated the experimental manipulations: Set size primarily affected processing between RLpcN onset and peak amplitude of the RLpcN, whereas the number of response alternatives affected the onset latency and the latency of peak amplitude of RLpcN. These results show how RLpcN activity can dissociate factor effects that are not separable with SLpcN activity during difficult search.


1999 ◽  
Vol 354 (1387) ◽  
pp. 1135-1144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Makeig ◽  
Marissa Westerfield ◽  
Jeanne Townsend ◽  
Tzyy-Ping Jung ◽  
Eric Courchesne ◽  
...  

Spatial visual attention modulates the first negative–going deflection in the human averaged event–related potential (ERP) in response to visual target and non–target stimuli (the N1 complex). Here we demonstrate a decomposition of N1 into functionally independent subcomponents with functionally distinct relations to task and stimulus conditions. ERPs were collected from 20 subjects in response to visual target and non–target stimuli presented at five attended and non–attended screen locations. Independent component analysis, a new method for blind source separation, was trained simultaneously on 500 ms grand average responses from all 25 stimulus–attention conditions and decomposed the non–target N1 complexes into five spatially fixed, temporally independent and physiologically plausible components. Activity of an early, laterally symmetrical component pair (N1a R and N1a L ) was evoked by the left and right visual field stimuli, respectively. Component N1a R peaked ca. 9 ms earlier than N1a L . Central stimuli evoked both components with the same peak latency difference, producing a bilateral scalp distribution. The amplitudes of these components were not reliably augmented by spatial attention. Stimuli in the right visual field evoked activity in a spatio–temporally overlapping bilateral component (N1b) that peaked at ca. 180 ms and was strongly enhanced by attention. Stimuli presented at unattended locations evoked a fourth component (P2a) peaking near 240 ms. A fifth component (P3f) was evoked only by targets presented in either visual field. The distinct response patterns of these components across the array of stimulus and attention conditions suggest that they reflect activity in functionally independent brain systems involved in processing attended and unattended visuospatial events.


2005 ◽  
Vol 52 (9) ◽  
pp. 1588-1596 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.P. Kelly ◽  
E.C. Lalor ◽  
C. Finucane ◽  
G. McDarby ◽  
R.B. Reilly

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (14) ◽  
pp. 3900-3921
Author(s):  
Xiangfei Hong ◽  
Ke Bo ◽  
Sreenivasan Meyyappan ◽  
Shanbao Tong ◽  
Mingzhou Ding

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 156
Author(s):  
Sreenivasan Meyyappan ◽  
Abhijit Rajan ◽  
Jesse Bengson ◽  
George Mangun ◽  
Mingzhou Ding

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document