Driven to less distraction: rTMS of the right parietal cortex reduces attentional capture in visual search

Cerebral Cortex

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 106-114

  Hodsoll, John ^a   Mevorach, Carmel ^a   Humphreys, Glyn W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PARIETAL LOBE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REACTION TIME; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION; VISION;

ADULT; ATTENTION; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL RECALL; PARIETAL LOBE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION;

EID: 57749200300     PISSN: 10473211     EISSN: 14602199     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhn070     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bacon WF, Egeth HE. 1994. Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture. Percept Psychophys. 55:485-496.
2. Beck DM, Muggleton N, Walsh V, Lavie N. 2006. Right parietal cortex plays a critical role in change blindness. Cereb Cortex. 16:712-717.
3. Bisley JW, Goldberg ME. 2003. Neuronal activity in the lateral intraparietal area and spatial attention. Science. 299(5603):81-86.
4. Constantinidis C, Steinmetz MA. 2005. Posterior parietal cortex automatically encodes the location of salient stimuli. J Neurosci. 25(1):233-238.
5. Corbetta M, Shulman GL. 2002. Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 3:201-215.
6. Cornelissen FW, Kimmig H, Schira M, Rutschmann RM, Maguire RP, Broerse A, Den Boer JA, Greenlee MW. 2002. Event-related fMRI responses in the human frontal eye fields in a randomized pro- and anti-saccade task. Exp Brain Res. 145:270-274.
7. Desimone R, Duncan J. 1995. Neural mechanisms of selective visual-attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 18:193-222.
8. de Fockert J, Rees G, Frith C, Lavie N. 2004. Neural correlates of attentional capture in visual search. J Cogn Neurosci. 16:751-759.
9. Ellison A, Rushworth M, Walsh V. 2003. The parietal cortex in visual search: a visuomotor hypothesis. Clin Neurophysiol. 56(Suppl):321-330.
10. Folk CL, Remington RW, Johnston JC. 1992. Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 18:1030-1044.
11. Folk CL, Remington RW. 1998. Selectivity in distraction by irrelevant featural singletons: Evidence for two forms of attentional capture. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 24:847-858.
12. Fuggetta G, Pavone EF, Walsh V, Kiss M, Eimer M. 2006. Cortico-cortical interactions in spatial attention: A combined ERP/TMS study. J Neurophysiol. 95(5):3277-3280.
13. Heilman KM, Valenstein E. 1979. Mechanisms underlying hemispatial neglect. Annals of Neurology. 5(2):166-170.
14. Hickey C, McDonald JJ, Theeuwes J. 2006. Electrophysiological evidence of attentional capture. J Cogn Neurosci. 18:604-613.
15. Hilgetag CC, Theoret H, Pascual-Leone A. 2001. Enhanced visual spatial attention ipsilateral to rTMS-induced 'virtual lesions' of human parietal cortex. Nat Neurosci. 4:953-957.
16. Husain M, Nachev P. 2007. Space and the parietal cortex. Trends Cogn Sci. 11(1):30-36.
17. Kinsbourne M. 1987. Mechanisms of unilateral neglect. In: Jeannerod M, editor. Neurophysiological and neuropsychological aspects of spatial neglect. Amsterdam (the Netherlands): North Holland. p. 69-86.
18. Kristjansson A, Vuilleumier P, Malhorta P, Husain M, Driver J. 2005. Priming of color and position during visual search in unilateral spatial neglect. J Cogn Neurosci. 17:859-873.
19. Kumada T, Humphreys GW. 2002. Cross-dimensional interference and cross-trial inhibition. Percept Psychophys. 64:493-503.
20. Li Z. 2002. A saliency map in primary visual cortex. Trends Cogn Sci. 6:9-16.
21. Manly T, Robertson IH, Galloway M, Hawkins K. 1999. The absent mind: further investigations of sustained attention to response. Neuropsychologia. 37:661-670.
22. Mevorach C, Humphreys GW, Shalev L. 2005. Attending to local form while ignoring global aspects depends on handedness: evidence from TMS. Nat Neurosci. 8:276-277.
23. Mevorach C, Humphreys GW, Shalev L. 2006. Opposite biases in salience-based selection for the left and right posterior parietal cortex. Nat Neurosci. 9:740-742.
24. Muller HJ, Heller D, Ziegler J. 1995. Visual search for singleton feature targets within and across feature dimensions. Percept Psychophys. 57:1-17.
25. Nobre AC, Coull JT, Walsh V, Frith CD. 2003. Brain activations during visual search: contributions of search efficiency versus feature binding. Neuroimage. 18(1):91-103.
26. Olivers CNL, Humphreys GW. 2003. Attentional guidance by salient feature singletons depends on intertrial contingencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance. 29(3):650-657.
27. Pashler H, Johnston JC, Ruthruff E. 2001. Attention and performance. Annu Rev Psychol. 52:629-651.
28. Pinto Y, Olivers CN, Theeuwes J. 2005. Target uncertainty does not lead to more distraction by singletons: inter-trial priming does. Percept Psychophys. 67:1354-1361.
29. Rabbit PMA, Vyas SM. 1970. An Elementary Preliminary Taxonomy for Some Errors in Laboratory Choice RT Tasks. In: Sanders AF, editor. Attention and Performance 3. Amsterdam (the Netherlands): North Holland. p. 56-76.
30. Rushworth MF, Ellison A, Walsh V. 2001. Complementary localization and lateralization of orienting and motor attention. Nat Neurosci. 4:656-661.
31. Rushworth MF, Taylor PC. 2006. TMS in the parietal cortex: updating representations for attention and action. Neuropsychologia. 44(13):2700-2716.
32. Theeuwes J. 1991. Cross-dimensional perceptual selectivity. Percept Psychophys. 50:184-193.
33. Theeuwes J. 1994. Stimulus-driven capture and attentional set: selective search for color and visual abrupt onsets. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 20(4):799-806.
34. Theeuwes J. 1995. Perceptual selectivity for color and form: On the nature of the interference effect. In: Kramer AF, Coles MGH, Logan GD, editors. Converging Operations in the Study of Visual Attention. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. p. 297-314.
35. Theeuwes J. 2004. Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture. Psychon Bull Rev. 11:65-70.
36. Theeuwes J, Burger R. 1998. Attentional control during visual search: the effect of irrelevant singletons. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 24:1342-1353.
37. van Zoest W, Donk M, Theeuwes J. 2004. The role of stimulus-driven and goal-driven control in saccadic visual selection. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 30:746-759.
38. Yantis S. 2000. Control of visual attention. In: Monsell S, Driver J, editors. Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII. Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. p. 71-208.
39. Yantis S, Egeth HE. 1999. On the distinction between visual salience and stimulus-driven attentional capture. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 25:661-676.
40. Walsh V, Pascual-Leone A. 2005. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: a Neurochronometrics of Mind. Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
41. Wolfe JM. 1994. Guided search 2.0 - a revised model of visual-search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 1(2):202-238.