The cognitive neuroscience of visual attention

Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 158-163

  Behrmann, Marlene ^a   Haimson, Craig ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRAIN REGION; COGNITION; CORPUS STRIATUM; HUMAN; NERVE CELL NETWORK; NEUROSCIENCE; PARIETAL LOBE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SELECTIVE ATTENTION; SPATIAL ORIENTATION; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; TEMPORAL LOBE; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL SYSTEM;

EID: 0032904362     PISSN: 09594388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-4388(99)80021-X     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Broadbent D.E. Perception and Communication. 1958;Pergamon Press, London.
2. Deutsch J.A., Deutsch D. Attention: some theoretical considerations. Psychol Rev. 37:1963;80-90.
3. Kahneman D. Attention and Effort. 1973;Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
4. Posner M.I., Snyder C.R.R., Davidson B.J. Attention and the detection of signals. J Exp Psychol [Gen]. 109:1980;160-174.
5. Sperling, G., Dosher, B.: Strategy and optimization in human information processing. In Handbook of Perception and Performance, vol 1, chapter 2. Edited by Boff K, Kaufman L, Thomas J. New York: Wiley; 1986:1-65.
6. Duncan J. Selective attention and the organization of visual information. J Exp Psychol [Gen]. 113:1984;501-517.
7. Cohen J., Romero R., Servan-Schreiber D., Farah M.J. Mechanisms of spatial attention: the relation of macrostructure to microstructure in parietal neglect. J Cogn Neurosci. 6:1994;377-387.
8. Koch C., Ullman S. Shifts in selective visual attention: towards the underlying neural circuitry. Hum Neurobiol. 4:1985;219-227.
9. Mozer M.C. The Perception of Multiple Objects: A Connectionist Approach. 1991;MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
10. Desimone R., Duncan J. Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu Rev Neurosci. 18:1995;193-197.
11. Duncan, J.: Cooperating brain systems in selective perception and action. In Attention and Performance, vol VXI. Edited by Inui T, McClelland JL. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1996:549-578.
12. Posner M., Petersen S.E. The attention system of the human brain. Annu Rev Neurosci. 13:1990;25-42.
13. Humphreys G.W., Olson A., Romani C., Riddoch M.J. Competitive mechanisms of selection by space and object: a neuropsychological approach. Kramer A.F., Logan G. Converging Operations in the Study of Visual Selective Attention. 1996;365-393 American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
14. Humphreys, G.W., Riddoch, M.J.: Interactions between space and object systems revealed through neuropsychology. In Attention and Performance, vol XIV. Edited by Meyer D, Kornblum S. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1993:143-162.
15. Vecera S., Farah M.J. Does visual attention select objects or locations? J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept Perform]. 123:1994;1-14.
16. Pashler H. Attention. 1998;Psychology Press, East Sussex.
17. Schneider, W.X., Maasen, S. (Eds).: Special issue on mechanisms of visual attention: a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Vis Cogn 1998, 5:1-309.
18. Luck S.J., Girelli M., McDermott M.T., Ford M.A. Bridging the gap between monkey neurophysiology and human perception: an ambiguity resolution theory of visual selective attention. Cogn Psychol. 33:1997;64-87. The authors observed an enhanced N2 posterior cortex ERP signal when subjects performed a visual discrimination task under various conditions previously shown to enhance competitive interactions in single-cell recording studies. These conditions include harder-to-discriminate conjunction targets (as opposed to simple feature targets), presence of distractors in close proximity to the target, and having to saccade to a target (as opposed to responding with a button press).
19. Rees G., Frith C.D., Lavie N. Modulating irrelevant motion perception by varying attentional load in an unrelated task. Science. 278:1997;1616-1619. Participants viewed displays consisting of peripherally presented optic flow patterns while they made an easy or difficult judgement about a centrally presented word. Decreased motion-related activity in areas V1, V2, V5, and the superior colliculus was observed during the more difficult word processing task; this suggests that increased cognitive load suppressed background perceptual processing of a visual attribute (i.e. motion) even though it was unrelated to the word task.
20. Kastner S., De Weerd P., Desimone R., Ungerleider L.G. Mechanisms of directed attention in the human extrastriate cortex as revealed by functional MRI. Science. 282:1998;108-111. Greater fMRI activity was observed in areas V1, V2, V4, and TEO when participants viewed sequentially presented, as opposed to simultaneously presented, pictures (suggesting the presence of suppressive competitive activity during simultaneous presentations). When participants attended to one of the picture locations, however, the suppressive interactions previously seen in the simultaneous presentation conditions were eliminated, suggesting that focused attention biased competition in favour of the attended stimulus.
21. Le T.H., Pardo J.V., Hu X. 4 T-fMRI study of nonspatial shifting of selecting attention: cerebellar and parietal contributions. J Physiol. 79:1998;1525-1548. Within a block of trials, subjects attended to either stimulus shape or colour (sustained attention) or switched attention across the two features during 4 T fMRI. Relative to a fixation condition, significant bilateral activation in occipital and temporal cortices was observed during sustained attention. Over and above this, in the switching condition, cerebellar, cuneus, precuneus and superior parietal lobe activation was observed.
22. Heinze H.J., Hinrichs H., Scholz M., Burchert W., Mangun G.R. Neural mechanisms of global and local processing: a combined PET and ERP study. J Cogn Neurosci. 10:1998;485-498. This combined ERP and PET study compared selective and divided attention to local and global components of a hierarchical stimulus. Differential cortical activation was not observed for global versus local information in early sensory areas, but later processing reflects hemispheric differences associated with global and local aspects of the stimulus.
23. di Pellegrino G., Basso G., Frassinetti F. Spatial extinction on double synchronous stimulation. Neuropsychologia. 35:1997;1215-1223. A patient with right parietal damage identified pairs of letters, one presented to the left visual field and the other to the right. The patient was impaired in identifying the contralaterally presented letter when brief SOAs separated the two stimulus onsets regardless of which letter appeared first in the series. Performance improved at longer temporal intervals. This finding is consistent with the competition model of extinction whereby the contralateral (left) stimulus loses out in favour of the ipsilateral (right) stimulus.
24. Pavlovskaya M., Sagi D., Soroker N., Ring H. Visual extinction and cortical connectivity in human vision. Cogn Brain Res. 6:1997;159-162.
25. Làdavas E., di Pellegrino G., Farne A., Zeloni G. Neuropsychological evidence of an integrated visuotactile representation of peripersonal space in humans. J Cogn Neurosci. 10:1998;581-589. The unbalanced competition between ipsilateral and contralateral sides of space is observed in right-hemisphere lesioned patients with tactile extinction even across sensory modalities: when a visual stimulus is presented near a subject's ipsilesional hand, tactile extinction is observed in that the probability of detecting a contralesional tactile stimulus is reduced.
26. Nobre A.C., Sebestyen G.N., Gittleman D.R., Mesulam M.M., Frackowiak R.S.J., Frith C.D. Functional localization of the system for the visuospatial attention using positron emission tomography. Brain. 120:1997;515-533.
27. Eimer M. Uninformative symbolic cues may bias visual-spatial attention: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Biol Psychol. 46:1997;67-71.
28. Mangun G.R., Buck L.A. Sustained visual-spatial attention produces costs and benefits in response time and evoked neural activity. Neuropsychologia. 36:1998;189-200. ERPs and behavioral data recorded while subjects divided attention between right and left hemifields or attended selectively to one revealed response time advantages for the attended regions, accompanied by an early ERP P1 component. A later positive deflection revealed both the attentional costs and benefits.
29. Corbetta M., Akbudak E., Conturo T.E., Snyder A.Z., Ollinger J.M., Drury H.A., Linenweber M.R., Petersen S.E., Raichle M.E., Van Essen D.C., Shulman G.L. A common network of functional areas for attention and eye movements. Neuron. 21:1998;761-773. An overlapping network of cortical regions, including frontal and supplementary eye fields as well as several parietal and temporal regions, was identified as being active during voluntary covert shifts of attention and during overt saccadic gaze shifts. These data suggest that attention and eye movements are anatomically, not just functionally, related.
30. Làdavas E., Zeloni G., Zaccara G., Gangemi P. Eye movements and orienting of attention in patients with visual neglect. J Cogn Neurosci. 9:1997;67-74. A functional dissociation between attention and eye movements is indicated by the disparate performance of patients with frontal and parietal lesions when these processes are implicated. Patients with frontoparietal lesions saccade leftwards without corresponding attentional shifts, whereas patients with parietal lesions respond well with eye movements to right-sided targets but not with attentional shifts alone.
31. Corbetta M., Miezin F.M., Shulman G.L., Petersen S.E. A PET study of visuospatial attention. J Neurosci. 13:1993;1202-1226.
32. Friedman-Hill S.R., Robertson L.C., Treisman A. Parietal contributions to visual feature binding: evidence from a patient with bilateral lesions. Science. 269:1995;853-855.
33. Wojciulik E., Kanwisher N. Implicit but not explicit feature binding in a Balint's patient. Vis Cogn. 5:1998;157-181.
34. Ashbridge E., Walsh V., Cowey A. Temporal aspects of visual search studies by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuropsychologia. 35:1997;1121-1131. TMS applied over the right parietal cortex of normal subjects disrupts visual search for conjunctive but not simple features. The results are consistent with biased competition in that parietal signals feed back to extrastriate areas, affecting the processing of features from certain spatial positions. Use of TMS provides direct evidence that posterior parietal cortex plays a role in the deployment of attention during effortful visual search.
35. Walsh V., Ashbridge E., Cowey A. Cortical plasticity in perceptual learning demonstrated by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuropsychologia. 36:1998;363-367. After subjects received sufficient training on a visual search task (such that search slopes were indicative of roughly parallel search), the application of TMS did not have a disruptive effect. This immunity to TMS did not transfer to a new conjunction search task, suggesting that practice eliminated the need for highly focused attention only in the detection of a specific, learned combination of features.
36. O'Craven K., Rosen B.R., Kwong K.K., Treisman A., Savoy R.L. Voluntary attention modulates fMRI activity in human MT-MST. Neuron. 18:1997;591-598.
37. Watanabe T., Sasaki Y., Miyauchi S., Putz B., Fujimaki N., Nielsen M., Takino R., Miyakawa S. Attention-regulated activity in human primary visual cortex. J Neurophysiol. 79:1998;2218-2221.
38. Büchel C., Josephs O., Rees G., Turner R., Frith C.D., Friston K.J. The functional anatomy of attention to visual motion. Brain. 121:1998;1281-1294.
39. Wojciulik E., Kanwisher N., Driver J. Covert visual attention modulates face-specific activity in the human fusiform gyrus. J Neurophysiol. 79:1998;1574-1578.
40. Nobre A.C., Allison T., McCarthy G. Modulation of human extrastriate visual processing by selective attention to colours and words. Brain. 121:1998;1357-1368.
41. Farah M.J. Visual Agnosia: Disorders of Object Recognition and What They Tell Us About Normal Vision. 1990;MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
42. Kramer A.F., Weber T.A., Watson S.E. Object-based attentional selection - Grouped-arrays or spatially-invariant representations? Comment on Vecera and Farah (1994). J Exp Psychol [Gen]. 126:1997;3-13. Subjects performed an object-based attention task (reporting perceptual attributes for one or two objects) while responding to the appearance of probe stimuli that were occasionally presented subsequent to the removal of the object-based attention display. Subjects were quicker to respond to probes that appeared in locations previously occupied by objects analyzed in the object-based task; this suggests that object-based decisions are made from 'grouped arrays' rather than from a spatially invariant re-resentation.
43. Chelazzi L., Miller E.K., Duncan J., Desimone R. A neural basis for visual search in inferior temporal cortex. Nature. 363:1993;345-347.
44. Moran J., Desimone R. Selective attention gates visual processing in the extrastriate cortex. Science. 229:1985;782-784.
45. Vanni S., Revonsuo A., Hari R. Modulation of the parieto-occipital alpha rhythm during object detection. J Neurosci. 17:1997;7141-7147.
46. Roelfsema P.R., Lamme V.A.F., Spekreijse H. Object-based attention in the primary visual cortex of the macaque monkey. Nature. 395:1998;376-381. The authors recorded from V1 cells in macaques required to saccade from a central fixation point to a target dot at the end of a curved line originating at fixation (a distractor dot appeared at the end of an additional curve that sometimes intersected the target curve). The results revealed enhanced firing rates in those cells whose receptive fields overlapped the curve connecting the target to fixation; simultaneous recording from multiple cells on different parts of the curve revealed that the onset of these enhanced firing rates occurred at the same time across all of the probed positions, suggesting that object-based attention facilitated processing of all portions of the curve simultaneously (as opposed to spreading along the curve from fixation to target).
47. Valdes-Sosa M., Bobes M.A., Rodriguez V., Pinilla T. Switching attention without shifting the spotlight: object-based attentional modulation of brain potentials. J Cogn Neurosci. 10:1998;137-151. The authors recorded ERP activity while subjects viewed displays of different coloured dots moving in the same circular path (in which case they appeared as part of the same surface) or opposite circular paths (in which case they appeared as part of two overlapping surfaces); subjects were instructed to report the occurrence of sudden angular movements of dots in one of the two colours. When displays appeared to contain two surfaces, angular movements of dots in the nontarget colour were associated with suppressed P1 and N1 ERP waveforms (showing surface-based attention in the absence of spatially separated stimuli); when displays appeared to contain a single surface nontarget dot, movements evoked a later selection negativity.
48. Weber T.A., Kramer A.F., Miller G.A. Selective processing of superimposed objects: an electrophysiological analysis of object-based attentional selection. Biol Psychol. 45:1997;159-182. The authors made ERP recordings while subjects reported the presence or absence of a pair of attributes (a colour and a shape) in displays consisting of two overlapping line drawings; probe dots occasionally appeared subsequent to the removal of these displays. Data revealed enhanced ERP waveforms indicative of early, space-based attention when both objects contained a target attribute (larger N1) as well as when probe dots appeared in locations previously occupied by objects containing both target attributes (larger P1).
49. Fink G.R., Dolan R.J., Halligan P.W., Marshall J.C., Frith C.D. Space-based and object-based visual attention: shared and specific neural domains. Brain. 120:1997;2013-2028. The authors recorded PET activity while subjects performed either an object-based or space-based location judgement. There was significant overlap between areas activated in both tasks (left and right medial and lateral parietal cortex, left prefrontal cortex); however, subjects also showed increased activity in the left occipital lobe and the striate and prestriate cortex during the object-based task, and right inferior temporal, fusiform gyrus, and right dorsolateral prefrontal during the space-based task. These findings suggest both commonality and specificity associated with selection of locations and objects.
50. Gilchrist I.D., Humphreys G.W., Riddoch M.J. Grouping and extinction: evidence for low-level modulation of visual selection. Cogn Neuropsychol. 13:1996;1223-1249.
51. Rorden C., Mattingley J.B., Karnath H.-O., Driver J. Visual extinction and prior entry: impaired perception of temporal order with intact motion perception after unilateral parietal damage. Neuropsychologia. 35:1997;421-433.
52. Mattingley J.B., David G., Driver J. Pre-attentive filling in of visual surfaces in parietal extinction. Science. 275:1997;671-674. A patient with right parietal damage was better at detecting bilateral changes to 'Pac-men' stimuli when items formed an illusory square than when they did not. This suggests that pre-attentive construction of illusory contours aided in the amelioration of extinction by grouping contralesional items with ipsilesional items.
53. Behrmann M., Moscovitch M., Black S.E., Mozer M. Perceptual and conceptual factors in neglect dyslexia: two contrasting case studies. Brain. 113:1990;1163-1883.
54. Driver J., Baylis G.C., Rafal R.D. Preserved figure-ground segregation and symmetry perception in visual neglect. Nature. 360:1992;73-75.
55. Ward R., Goodrich S., Driver J. Grouping reduces visual extinction: neuropsychological evidence for weight-linkage in visual selection. Vis Cogn. 1:1994;101-129.
56. Mozer M.C., Sitton M. Computational modeling of spatial attention. Pashler H Attention. 1998;341-395 Psychology Press, East Sussex.
57. Humphreys G.W., Heinke D. Spatial representation in the brain: neuropsychological and computational constraints. Vis Cogn. 5:1998;9-47.
58. Pouget A., Sejnowski T.J. A new view of hemineglect based on the response properties of parietal neurones. Philos Trans R Soc [Lond]. 352:1997;1449-1459. The major focus of these simulations is the representation of space using mathematical basis functions (roughly analogous to dimensions or co-ordinates) of sensory inputs. A saliency value assigned to the inputs, however, determines selection, and once a position is selected, its saliency is subsequently set to zero (and return to it is inhibited). A range of data from patients with parietal lesions is simulated under these computational conditions. Use of basis functions provides an explanation of how multiple attentional deficits can be evoked by a single lesion to a neural network.