Competitive brain activity in visual attention

Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 255-261

  Duncan, John ^a   Humphreys, Glyn ^b   Ward, Robert ^c  

^a MRC COGNITION AND BRAIN SCIENCES UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^c BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRAIN FUNCTION; BRAIN REGION; COGNITION; HUMAN; MACACA; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SELECTIVE ATTENTION;

EID: 0030912855     PISSN: 09594388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-4388(97)80014-1     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Desimone R, Ungerleider LG. Neural mechanisms of visual processing in monkeys. Boller F, Grafman J. Handbook of Neuropsychology. 2:1989;267-299 Elsevier, Amsterdam.
2. Zeki SM. Uniformity and diversity of structure and function in rhesus monkey prestriate visual cortex. J Physiol. 277:1978;273-290.
3. Stein BE, Wallace MT, Meredith MA. Neural mechanisms mediating attention and orientation to multisensory cues. Gazzaniga MS. The Cognitive Neurosciences. 1995;683-702 MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
4. Petersen SE, Robinson DL, Keys W. Pulvinar nuclei of the behaving rhesus monkey: visual response and their modulation. J Neurophysiol. 54:1985;867-886.
5. Rizzolatti G, Camarda R. Neural circuits for spatial attention and unilateral neglect. Jeannerod M. Neurophysiological and Neuropsychological Aspects of Neglect. 1987;289-313 North-Holland, Amsterdam.
6. Goldberg ME, Colby CL. The neurophysiology of spatial vision. Boller F, Grafman J. Handbook of Neuropsychology. 2:1989;301-315 Elsevier, Amsterdam.
7. Broadbent DE. Perception and Communication. 1958;Pergamon, London.
8. Neisser U. Cognitive Psychology. 1967;Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
9. of special interest Duncan J. Cooperating brain systems in selective perception and action. Inui T, McClelland JL. Attention and Performance. XVI:1996;549-578 MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, A fuller presentation of the material covered here. Single-unit data from the object search task are reviewed in detail. A discussion of extinction includes a comparison of individual human cases with parietal and occipitotemporal lesions and a treatment of nonspatial extinction in Balint's syndrome. A normal analogue to extinction is considered, along with data on the time-course of attentional competition. The integrated competition hypothesis is related to other attentional theories and to the broader literature on dual-task interference.
10. of special interest Humphreys GW, Olson A, Romani C, Riddoch MJ. Competitive mechanisms of selection by space and object: a neuropsychological approach. Coles M, Kramer A. Converging Operations in the Study of Visual Selective Attention. 1996;365-393 Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, A review of several patient studies dealing with spatial and object factors in extinction and neglect. A patient showing dissociated patterns of neglect within and between perceptual objects is analyzed in detail. Grouping factors and nonspatial extinction are described in a case of Balint's syndrome Results are related to a network model of between-object competition.
11. Desimone R, Duncan J. Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu Rev Neurosci. 18:1995;193-222.
12. Driver J, Mattingley JB. Selective attention in humans: normality and pathology. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 5:1995;191-197.
13. Duncan J. Selective attention and the organization of visual information. J Exp Psychol [Gen]. 113:1984;501-517.
14. Vecera SP, Farah MJ. Does visual attention select objects or locations? J Exp Psychol [Gen]. 123:1994;146-160.
15. Duncan J, Ward R, Shapiro K. Direct measurement of attentional dwell time in human vision. Nature. 369:1994;313-315.
16. Raymond JE, Shapiro KL, Arnell KM. Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: an attentional blink? J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform]. 18:1992;849-860.
17. Tipper SP, Lortie C, Baylis GC. Selective reaching: evidence for action-centered attention. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform]. 18:1992;891-905.
18. Farah MJ. Visual Agnosia: Disorders of Object Recognition and What They Tell Us About Normal Vision. 1990;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
19. Phaf RH, van der Heijden AHC, Hudson PTW. SLAM: a connectionist model for attention in visual selection tasks. Cogn Psychol. 22:1990;273-341.
20. Duncan J. Coordination of what and where in visual attention. Perception. 22:1993;1261-1270.
21. Treisman AM. The binding problem. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 6:1996;171-178.
22. Jonides Y, Yantis S. Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention. Percept Psychophys. 43:1988;346-354.
23. Treisman AM, Gormican S. Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. Psychol Rev. 95:1988;15-48.
24. Harter MR, Aine CJ. Brain mechanisms of visual selective attention. Parasuraman R, Davies DR. Varieties of Attention. 1984;293-321 Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
25. Walley RE, Weiden TD. Lateral inhibition and cognitive masking: a neuropsychological theory of attention. Psychol Rev. 80:1973;284-302.
26. Sperling G. The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychol Monogr. 74:1960;11. Whole No. 498.
27. Von Wright JM. On selection in visual immediate memory. Sanders AF. Attention and Performance. III:1970;280-292 North-Holland, Amsterdam.
28. Duncan J. Perceptual selection based on alphanumeric class: evidence from partial reports. Percept Psychophys. 33:1983;533-547.
29. Bundesen C. A theory of visual attention. Psychol Rev. 97:1990;523-547.
30. Duncan J. The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli. Psychol Rev. 87:1980;272-300.
31. Wurtz RH, Mohler CW. Organization of monkey superior colliculus: enhanced visual response of superficial layer cells. J Neurophysiol. 39:1976;745-765.
32. Bushnell MC, Goldberg ME, Robinson DL. Behavioral enhancement of visual responses in monkey cerebral cortex. I. Modulation in posterior parietal cortex related to selective visual attention. J Neurophysiol. 46:1981;755-772.
33. Ungerleider LG, Mishkin M. Two cortical visual systems. Ingle DJ, Goodale MA, Mansfield RJW. Analysis of Visual Behaviour. 1982;549-586 MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
34. Goodale MA. One visual experience, many visual systems. Inui T, McClelland JL. Attention and Performance. XVI:1996;369-393 MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
35. Moran J, Desimone R. Selective attention gates visual processing in the extrastriate cortex. Science. 229:1995;782-784.
36. of outstanding interest Luck SJ, Chelazzi L, Hillyard SA, Desimone R. Neural mechanisms of spatial selective attention in areas V1, V2, and V4 of macaque visual cortex. J Neurophysiol. 1997; An extensive study of single-unit activity invisual areas V1, V2 and V4 during a spatial attention task. One set of analyses concerns enhanced spontaneous discharge when the cued location lies within a cell's receptive field, observed in V2 and V4 but not in V1. A second set concerns attentional modulation of response to an effective stimulus, including detailed analysis of its time-course and dependence on the spatial configuration of the display.
37. of outstanding interest Treue S, Maunsell JHR. Attentional modulation of visual motion processing in cortical areas MT and MST. Nature. 382:1996;539-541 A demonstration of attentional modulation of single-unit responses in motion-sensitive areas MT and MST. In line with earlier findings for V4 and IT [35], modulation is strongest when competing stimuli lie within the receptive field. Even directing attention outside the receptive field, however, produces some reduction of response to the receptive field stimulus.
38. of outstanding interest Connor CE, Gallant JL, Preddie DC, Van Essen DC. Responses in area V4 depend on the spatial relationship between stimulus and attention. J Neurophysiol. 75:1996;1306-1308 A detailed analysis of dependence of V4 unit activity on the spatial location of attention. Responses to a given stimulus are enhanced the closer the stimulus is to the attended location. Irrespective of stimulus position, however, a cell's general level of activity can be influenced by where attention is focused in the area immediately surrounding the receptive field.
39. Chelazzi L, Miller EK, Duncan J, Desimone R. A neural basis for visual search in inferior temporal cortex. Nature. 363:1993;345-347.
40. Fuster JM, Bauer RH, Jervey JP. Functional interactions between inferotemporal and prefrontal cortex in a cognitive task. Brain Res. 330:1985;299-307.
41. Miyashita Y, Chang HS. Neuronal correlate of pictorial short-term memory in the primate temporal cortex. Nature. 331:1988;68-70.
42. of special interest Schneider WX. VAM: a neuro-cognitive model for visual attention control of segmentation, object recognition and space-based motor actions. Vis Cogn. 2:1995;331-376 Presents a broadly focused model of attentional selection in dorsal and ventral streams, and its relation to object recognition and spatially guided behaviour. Problems addressed include object segmentation, feature binding, feedback projections from higher- to lower-order visual areas, and the relation between spatial and nonspatial visual selection. The model is related to a broad range of behavioural phenomena.
43. Motter BC. Focal attention produces spatially selective processing in visual cortical areas V1, V2, and V4 in the presence of competing stimuli. J Neurophysiol. 70:1993;909-919.
44. Motter BC. Neural correlates of attentive selection for color or luminance in extrastriate area V4. J Neurosci. 14:1994;2178-2189.
45. Di Pellegrino G, Wise SP. Visuospatial versus visuomotor activity in the premotor and prefrontal cortex of a primate. J Neurosci. 13:1993;1227-1243.
46. Niki H, Watanabe M. Prefrontal unit activity and delayed response: relation to cue location versus direction of response. Brain Res. 105:1976;79-88.
47. Kinsboume M. Mechanisms of unilateral neglect. Jeannerod M. Neurophysiological and Neuropsychological Aspects of Neglect. 1987;69-86 North-Holland, Amsterdam.
48. Mesulam MM. A cortical network for directed attention and unilateral neglect. Ann Neurol. 10:1981;309-325.
49. Rizzolatti G, Berti A. Neglect as a neural representation deficit. Rev Neurol (Paris). 146:1990;626-634.
50. Bender MB. Disorders in Perception. 1952;Charles C Thomas, Springfield, IL.
51. Kamath H-O. Deficits of attention in acute and recovered visual hemi-neglect. Neuropsychologia. 26:1988;27-43.
52. Ward R, Goodrich SJ, Driver J. Grouping reduces visual extinction: neuropsychological evidence for weight linkage in visual selection. Vis Cogn. 1:1994;101-129.
53. Critchley M. The Parietal Lobes. 1953;Edward Arnold, London.
54. Vallar G, Rusconi ML, Bignamini L, Geminiani G, Perani D. Anatomical correlates of visual and tactile extinction in humans: a clinical CT scan study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 57:1994;464-470.
55. Desimone R, Wessinger M, Thomas L, Schneider W. Attentional control of visual perception: cortical and subcortical mechanisms. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 55:1990;963-971.
56. Bisiach E, Vallar G. Hemineglect in humans. Boller F, Grafman J. Handbook of Neuropsychology. 1:1988;195-222 Elsevier, Amsterdam.
57. Posner MI, Rafal RD. Cognitive theories of attention and the rehabilitation of attentional deficit. Meir RJ, Diller L, Benton AC. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation. 1986;182-201 Churchill-Livingston, London.
58. Robertson IH, North NT. One hand is better than two: motor extinction of left hand advantage in unilateral neglect. Neuropsychologia. 32:1994;1-11.
59. Butter CM, Kirsch NL. Combined and separate affects to eye patching and visual stimulation on unilateral neglect following stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 73:1992;1133-1139.
60. Rubens AB. Caloric stimulation and unilateral visual neglect. Neurology. 35:1985;1019-1024.
61. Morais J. Spatial constraints on attention to speech. Requin J. Attention and Performance. VII:1978;245-260 Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
62. of special interest Spence CJ, Driver J. Audiovisual links in endogenous covert spatial attention. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform]. 22:1996;1005-1030 In these experiments, speeded manual responses were made to target stimuli that could be either visual or auditory, and positioned either to the left or right. Findings indicated close links between auditory and visual biases. When targets in one modality were more probable on one side than the other, the corresponding side was also favoured in the other modality. Performance costs were associated with a specific requirement to focus visual and auditory expectancy on different sides.
63. of outstanding interest Driver J, Grossenbacher PG. Multimodal spatial constraints on tactile selective attention. Inui T, McClelland JL. Attention and Performance. XVI:1996;209-235 MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, Speeded discrimination responses were made to vibrotactile stimuli delivered to the fingertips. Subjects focused on one hand while ignoring irrelevant distractor stimuli presented simultaneously to the other hand. Effects of congruence between target and distractor were used to investigate suppression of distractor processing. Such suppression was affected both by spatial separation of the hands and by head/eye orientation (either blindfolded or not) towards the target or distractor side.
64. of special interest Deubel H, Schneider WX. Saccade target selection and object recognition: evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Res. 36:1996;1827-1837 Brief arrays of alphanumeric characters were presented while subjects prepared a saccade to a pre-cued location. The results suggested little ability to direct attention to one character location while preparing a saccade to another.
65. of outstanding interest Shimojo S, Tanaka Y, Hikosaka O, Miyauchi S. Vision, attention, and action: inhibition and facilitation in sensory-motor links revealed by the reaction time and the line motion. Inui T, McClelland JL. Attention and Performance. XVI:1996;597-630 MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, A line-motion illusion is used to show that preparation for a manual response biases visual attention to the target location. This is true even when the target location is remembered rather than visually marked. Similar results are produced by saccade preparation. The paper also presents data dissociating 'inhibition of return' in different visual tasks.
66. Klein R. Does oculomotor readiness mediate cognitive control of visual attention? Nickerson RS. Attention and Performance. VIII:1980;259-276 Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
67. of special interest Spence CJ, Driver J. Audiovisual links in exogenous covert spatial orienting. Percept Psychophys. 59:1997;1-22 Irrelevant visual or auditory pre-cues were presented to the left or right, before speeded manual responses to visual or auditory targets. While auditory pre-cues affected lateral bias in both modalities, visual pre-cues affected only visual bias. These results are important for showing a limitation on global between-modality spatial integration.
68. Guariglia C, Antonucci G. Personal and extrapersonal space: a case of neglect dissociation. Neuropsychologia. 30:1992;1001-1009.
69. Tegnér R, Levander M. Through a looking glass: a new technique to demonstrate directional hypokinesia in unilateral neglect. Brain. 114:1991;1943-1951.
70. of outstanding interest Ward R, Goodrich SJ. Differences between objects and non-objects in visual extinction: a competition for attention. Psychol Sci. 3:1996;177-180 Two extinction patients were asked to detect visual targets presented to their left and/or right. Targets were drawings of either familiar objects or nonsense shapes. Extinction was shown by the normal pattern of failure to detect a contralesional stimulus with concurrent ipsilesional input; this tendency, however, was much stronger when the contralesional stimulus was a nonsense shape. The results show that object familiarity can partly overcome the competitive effects of spatial bias in extinction.
71. of special interest Christie J, Klein RM. Familiarity and attention: does what we know affect what we notice? Mem Cogn. 23:1995;547-550 Provides preliminary evidence for an attentional bias towards familiar objects in normal vision. Displays contained two letter strings, either both familiar (words), both unfamiliar (nonwords), or one of each. Using a motion identification task, the authors showed preferential processing of the familiar item in a mixed-familiarity display.
72. Humphreys GW, Romani C, Olson A, Riddoch MJ, Duncan J. Non-spatial extinction following lesions of the parietal lobe in humans. Nature. 372:1994;357-359.
73. of special interest Gilchrist ID, Humphreys GW, Riddoch MJ. Grouping and extinction: evidence for low-level modulation of visual selection. Cogn Neuropsychol. 13:1997;1223-1249 Examines extinction in a patient with Balint's syndrome, showing the importance of both spatial separation and perceptual grouping between simultaneous targets. Collinear-edge and direction-of-contrast grouping cues are investigated.
74. Duncan J. Selection of input and goal in the control of behaviour. Baddeley AD, Weiskrantz L. Attention: Selection, Awareness and Control. A Tribute to Donald Broadbent. 1993;53-71 Oxford University Press, Oxford.
75. of outstanding interest Robertson IH, Nico D, Hood BM. The intention to act improves unilateral left neglect: two demonstrations. Neuroreport. 7:1995;246-248 Two experiments investigated lateral bias in left-neglect patients carrying out contrasting manual tasks. Rightward bias was stronger when subjects pointed to the centre of a rod than when they reached to pick it up. Bias was stronger when subjects indicated the centre of a swivelled surface than when they tried to balance a coin so that the surface would not tip. The results provide preliminary evidence that the purpose of an action modulates the spatial bias it suffers in neglect.
76. Patterson K, Graham N, Hodges JR. The impact of semantic memory loss on phonological representations. J Cogn Neurosci. 6:1994;57-69.