Search

Saccadic eye movements are a major source of disruption to visual stability, yet we experience little of this disruption. We can keep track of the same object across multiple saccades. It is generally assumed that visual stability is due to the process of remapping, in which retinotopically organized maps are updated to compensate for the retinal shifts caused by eye movements. Recent behavioral and ERP evidence suggests that visual attention is also remapped, but that it may still leave a residual retinotopic trace immediately after a saccade. The current study was designed to further examine electrophysiological evidence for such a retinotopic trace by recording ERPs elicited by stimuli that were presented immediately after a saccade (80 msec SOA). Participants were required to maintain attention at a specific location (and to memorize this location) while making a saccadic eye movement. Immediately after the saccade, a visual stimulus was briefly presented at either the attended location (the same spatiotopic location), a location that matched the attended location retinotopically (the same retinotopic location), or one of two control locations. ERP data revealed an enhanced P1 amplitude for the stimulus presented at the retinotopically matched location, but a significant attenuation for probes presented at the original attended location. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that visuospatial attention lingers in retinotopic coordinates immediately following gaze shifts.

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.

It is still debated to what degree top-down and bottom-up driven attentional control processes are subserved by shared or by separate mechanisms. Interactions between these attentional control forms were investigated using a rapid event-related fMRI design, using an attentional search task. Following a prestimulus mask, target stimuli (consisting of a letter C or a mirror image of the C, enclosed in a diamond outline) were presented either at one unique location among three nontarget items (consisting of a random letter, enclosed in a circle outline; 50% probability), or at all four possible target locations (also 50% probability). On half the trials, irrelevant color singletons were presented, consisting of a color change of one of the four prestimulus masks, just prior to target appearance. Participants were required to search for a target letter inside the diamond and report its orientation. Results indicate that, in addition to a common network of parietal areas, medial frontal cortex is uniquely involved in top-down orienting, whereas bottom-up control is mainly subserved by a network of occipital and parietal areas. Additionally, we found that participants who were better able to suppress orienting to the color singleton showed middle frontal gyrus activation, and that the degree of top-down control correlated with insular activity. We conclude that, in addition to a common set of parietal areas, separate brain areas are involved in top-down and bottom-up driven attentional control, and that frontal areas play a role in the suppression of attentional capture by an irrelevant color singleton.

The synchronous occurrence of the unisensory components of a multisensory stimulus contributes to their successful merging into a coherent perceptual representation. Oscillatory gamma-band responses (GBRs, 30-80 Hz) have been linked to feature integration mechanisms and to multisensory processing, suggesting they may also be sensitive to the temporal alignment of multisensory stimulus components. Here we examined the effects on early oscillatory GBR brain activity of varying the precision of the temporal synchrony of the unisensory components of an audio-visual stimulus. Audio-visual stimuli were presented with stimulus onset asynchronies ranging from -125 to +125 ms. Randomized streams of auditory (A), visual (V), and audio-visual (AV) stimuli were presented centrally while subjects attended to either the auditory or visual modality to detect occasional targets. GBRs to auditory and visual components of multisensory AV stimuli were extracted for five subranges of asynchrony (e.g., A preceded by V by 100+/-25 ms, by 50+/-25 ms, etc.) and compared with GBRs to unisensory control stimuli. Robust multisensory interactions were observed in the early GBRs when the auditory and visual stimuli were presented with the closest synchrony. These effects were found over medial-frontal brain areas after 30-80 ms and over occipital brain areas after 60-120 ms. A second integration effect, possibly reflecting the perceptual separation of the two sensory inputs, was found over occipital areas when auditory inputs preceded visual by 100+/-25 ms. No significant interactions were observed for the other subranges of asynchrony. These results show that the precision of temporal synchrony can have an impact on early cross-modal interactions in human cortex.

We used event-related potentials (ERPs) to evaluate the role of attention in the integration of visual and auditory features of multisensory objects. This was done by contrasting the ERPs to multisensory stimuli (AV) to the sum of the ERPs to the corresponding auditory-only (A) and visual-only (V) stimuli [i.e., AV vs. (A + V)]. V, A, and VA stimuli were presented in random order to the left and right hemispaces. Subjects attended to a designated side to detect infrequent target stimuli in either modality there. The focus of this report is on the ERPs to the standard (i.e., nontarget) stimuli. We used rapid variable stimulus onset asynchronies (350-650 msec) to mitigate anticipatory activity and included "no-stim" trials to estimate and remove ERP overlap from residual anticipatory processes and from adjacent stimuli in the sequence. Spatial attention effects on the processing of the unisensory stimuli consisted of a modulation of visual P1 and N1 components (at 90-130 msec and 160-200 msec, respectively) and of the auditory N1 and processing negativity (100-200 msec). Attended versus unattended multisensory ERPs elicited a combination of these effects. Multisensory integration effects consisted of an initial frontal positivity around 100 msec that was larger for attended stimuli. This was followed by three phases of centro-medially distributed effects of integration and/or attention beginning at around 160 msec, and peaking at 190 (scalp positivity), 250 (negativity), and 300-500 msec (positivity) after stimulus onset. These integration effects were larger in amplitude for attended than for unattended stimuli, providing neural evidence that attention can modulate multisensory-integration processes at multiple stages.