Search

Background: When studying attentional orienting processes, brain activity elicited by symbolic cue is usually compared to a neutral condition in which no information is provided about the upcoming target location. It is generally assumed that when a neutral cue is provided, participants do not shift their attention. The present study sought to validate this assumption. We further investigated whether anticipated task demands had an impact on brain activity related to processing symbolic cues. Methodology/Principal Findings: Two experiments were conducted, during which event-related potentials were elicited by symbolic cues that instructed participants to shift their attention to a particular location on a computer screen. In Experiment 1, attention shift-inducing cues were compared to non-informative cues, while in both conditions participants were required to detect target stimuli that were subsequently presented at peripheral locations. In Experiment 2, a non-ambiguous "stay-central" cue that explicitly required participants not to shift their attention was used instead. In the latter case, target stimuli that followed a stay-central cue were also presented at a central location. Both experiments revealed enlarged early latency contralateral ERP components to shift-inducing cues compared to those elicited by either non-informative (exp. 1) or stay-central cues (exp. 2). In addition, cueing effects were modulated by the anticipated difficulty of the upcoming target, particularly so in Experiment 2. A positive difference, predominantly over the posterior contralateral scalp areas, could be observed for stay-central cues, especially for those predicting that the upcoming target would be easy. This effect was not present for non-informative cues. Conclusions/Significance: We interpret our result in terms of a more rapid engagement of attention occurring in the presence of a more predictive instruction (i.e. stay-central easy target). Our results indicate that the huma

Previous research has shown that the extent to which people spread attention across the visual field plays a crucial role in visual selection and the occurrence of bottom-up driven attentional capture. Consistent with previous findings, we show that when attention was diffusely distributed across the visual field while searching for a shape singleton, an irrelevant salient color singleton captured attention. However, while using the very same displays and task, no capture was observed when observers initially focused their attention at the center of the display. Using event-related fMRI, we examined the modulation of retinotopic activity related to attentional capture in early visual areas. Because the sensory display characteristics were identical in both conditions, we were able to isolate the brain activity associated with exogenous attentional capture. The results show that spreading of attention leads to increased bottom-up exogenous capture and increased activity in visual area V3 but not in V2 and V1. © 2011 Mulckhuyse et al.

Previous research has shown that the extent to which people spread attention across the visual field plays a crucial role in visual selection and the occurrence of bottom-up driven attentional capture. Consistent with previous findings, we show that when attention was diffusely distributed across the visual field while searching for a shape singleton, an irrelevant salient color singleton captured attention. However, while using the very same displays and task, no capture was observed when observers initially focused their attention at the center of the display. Using event-related fMRI, we examined the modulation of retinotopic activity related to attentional capture in early visual areas. Because the sensory display characteristics were identical in both conditions, we were able to isolate the brain activity associated with exogenous attentional capture. The results show that spreading of attention leads to increased bottom-up exogenous capture and increased activity in visual area V3 but not in V2 and V1. © 2011 Mulckhuyse et al.

Background: When studying attentional orienting processes, brain activity elicited by symbolic cue is usually compared to a neutral condition in which no information is provided about the upcoming target location. It is generally assumed that when a neutral cue is provided, participants do not shift their attention. The present study sought to validate this assumption. We further investigated whether anticipated task demands had an impact on brain activity related to processing symbolic cues. Methodology/Principal Findings: Two experiments were conducted, during which event-related potentials were elicited by symbolic cues that instructed participants to shift their attention to a particular location on a computer screen. In Experiment 1, attention shift-inducing cues were compared to non-informative cues, while in both conditions participants were required to detect target stimuli that were subsequently presented at peripheral locations. In Experiment 2, a non-ambiguous "stay-central" cue that explicitly required participants not to shift their attention was used instead. In the latter case, target stimuli that followed a stay-central cue were also presented at a central location. Both experiments revealed enlarged early latency contralateral ERP components to shift-inducing cues compared to those elicited by either non-informative (exp. 1) or stay-central cues (exp. 2). In addition, cueing effects were modulated by the anticipated difficulty of the upcoming target, particularly so in Experiment 2. A positive difference, predominantly over the posterior contralateral scalp areas, could be observed for stay-central cues, especially for those predicting that the upcoming target would be easy. This effect was not present for non-informative cues. Conclusions/Significance: We interpret our result in terms of a more rapid engagement of attention occurring in the presence of a more predictive instruction (i.e. stay-central easy target). Our results indicate that the huma

The auto-adaptive averaging procedure proposed here classifies artifacts in event-related potential data by optimizing the signal-to-noise ratio. This method rank orders single trials according to the impact of each trial on the ERP average. Then, the minimum residual background noise level in the ERP data is determined at each step in the averaging process. Trials having a negative impact on the residual background noise are discarded from the averaging procedure. Simulations showed that ERP estimates obtained by the auto-adaptive averaging procedure were either better or comparable to those obtained by single trial artifact detection methods at their most optimum configuration, in particular during long duration artifacts. Experimental data from a working memory task further illustrate the effectiveness of the method. Copyright © 2007 Society for Psychophysiological Research.

The auto-adaptive averaging procedure proposed here classifies artifacts in event-related potential data by optimizing the signal-to-noise ratio. This method rank orders single trials according to the impact of each trial on the ERP average. Then, the minimum residual background noise level in the ERP data is determined at each step in the averaging process. Trials having a negative impact on the residual background noise are discarded from the averaging procedure. Simulations showed that ERP estimates obtained by the auto-adaptive averaging procedure were either better or comparable to those obtained by single trial artifact detection methods at their most optimum configuration, in particular during long duration artifacts. Experimental data from a working memory task further illustrate the effectiveness of the method. Copyright © 2007 Society for Psychophysiological Research.

The present study shows that an abrupt onset cue that is not consciously perceived can cause attentional facilitation followed by inhibition at the cued location. The observation of this classic biphasic effect of facilitation followed by inhibition of return (IOR) suggests that the subliminal cue captured attention in a purely exogenous way. Since IOR is not observed following endogenous shifts of spatial attention, but is observed following exogenous, stimulus-driven shifts of spatial attention, it is unlikely that top-down control settings or other non-attentional effects played a role. The current findings are interpreted in terms of a neurobiological model of visual awareness.

The present study shows that an abrupt onset cue that is not consciously perceived can cause attentional facilitation followed by inhibition at the cued location. The observation of this classic biphasic effect of facilitation followed by inhibition of return (IOR) suggests that the subliminal cue captured attention in a purely exogenous way. Since IOR is not observed following endogenous shifts of spatial attention, but is observed following exogenous, stimulus-driven shifts of spatial attention, it is unlikely that top-down control settings or other non-attentional effects played a role. The current findings are interpreted in terms of a neurobiological model of visual awareness.

One finding in attention research is that visual and auditory attention mechanisms are linked together. Such a link would predict a central, amodal capacity limit in processing visual and auditory stimuli. Here we show that this is not the case. Letter streams were accompanied by asynchronously presented streams of auditory, visual, and audiovisual objects. Either the letter streams or the visual, auditory, or audiovisual parts of the object streams were attended. Attending to various aspects of the objects resulted in modulations of the letter-stream-elicited steady-state evoked potentials (SSVEPs). SSVEPs were larger when auditory objects were attended than when either visual objects alone or when auditory and visual object stimuli were attended together. SSVEP amplitudes were the same in the latter conditions, indicating that attentional capacity between modalities is larger than attentional capacity within one and the same modality. Copyright © 2006 Society for Psychophysiological Research.

One finding in attention research is that visual and auditory attention mechanisms are linked together. Such a link would predict a central, amodal capacity limit in processing visual and auditory stimuli. Here we show that this is not the case. Letter streams were accompanied by asynchronously presented streams of auditory, visual, and audiovisual objects. Either the letter streams or the visual, auditory, or audiovisual parts of the object streams were attended. Attending to various aspects of the objects resulted in modulations of the letter-stream-elicited steady-state evoked potentials (SSVEPs). SSVEPs were larger when auditory objects were attended than when either visual objects alone or when auditory and visual object stimuli were attended together. SSVEP amplitudes were the same in the latter conditions, indicating that attentional capacity between modalities is larger than attentional capacity within one and the same modality. Copyright © 2006 Society for Psychophysiological Research.