Literature DB >> 14702335

Using auditory and visual stimuli to investigate the behavioral and neuronal consequences of reflexive covert orienting.

Andrew H Bell1, Jillian H Fecteau, Douglas P Munoz.   

Abstract

Reflexively orienting toward a peripheral cue can influence subsequent responses to a target, depending on when and where the cue and target appear relative to each other. At short delays between the cue and target [cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA)], subjects are faster to respond when they appear at the same location, an effect referred to as reflexive attentional capture. At longer CTOAs, subjects are slower to respond when the two appear at the same location, an effect referred to as inhibition of return (IOR). Recent evidence suggests that these phenomena originate from sensory interactions between the cue- and target-related responses. The capture of attention originates from a strong target-related response, derived from the overlap of the cue- and target-related activities, whereas IOR corresponds to a weaker target-aligned response. If such interactions are responsible, then modifying their nature should impact the neuronal and behavioral outcome. Monkeys performed a cue-target saccade task featuring visual and auditory cues while neural activity was recorded from the superior colliculus (SC). Compared with visual stimuli, auditory responses are weaker and occur earlier, thereby decreasing the likelihood of interactions between these signals. Similar to previous studies, visual stimuli evoked reflexive attentional capture at a short CTOA (60 ms) and IOR at longer CTOAs (160 and 610 ms) with corresponding changes in the target-aligned activity in the SC. Auditory cues used in this study failed to elicit either a behavioral effect or modification of SC activity at any CTOA, supporting the hypothesis that reflexive orienting is mediated by sensory interactions between the cue and target stimuli.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14702335     DOI: 10.1152/jn.01080.2003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  28 in total

1.  Sensory biases produce alternation advantage found in sequential saccadic eye movement tasks.

Authors:  Jillian H Fecteau; Crystal Au; Irene T Armstrong; Douglas P Munoz
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-07-09       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Sensory and motor mechanisms of oculomotor inhibition of return.

Authors:  Zhiguo Wang; Jason Satel; Raymond M Klein
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Two spatially separated attention systems in the visual field: evidence from inhibition of return.

Authors:  Yan Bao; Ernst Pöppel
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2007-03

4.  Reaction times of manual responses to a visual stimulus at the goal of a planned memory-guided saccade in the monkey.

Authors:  B Suresh Krishna; Sara C Steenrod; James W Bisley; Yevgeniy B Sirotin; Michael E Goldberg
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-03-15       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Stimulus intensity modifies saccadic reaction time and visual response latency in the superior colliculus.

Authors:  A H Bell; M A Meredith; A J Van Opstal; D P Munoz
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-03-10       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Gaze shifts to auditory and visual stimuli in cats.

Authors:  Janet L Ruhland; Tom C T Yin; Daniel J Tollin
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-06-08

Review 7.  The reorienting system of the human brain: from environment to theory of mind.

Authors:  Maurizio Corbetta; Gaurav Patel; Gordon L Shulman
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2008-05-08       Impact factor: 17.173

8.  Neural correlates of spatial orienting in the human superior colliculus.

Authors:  Elaine J Anderson; Geraint Rees
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Effects of sustained spatial attention in the human lateral geniculate nucleus and superior colliculus.

Authors:  Keith A Schneider; Sabine Kastner
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-02-11       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  The mechanism underlying inhibition of saccadic return.

Authors:  Casimir J H Ludwig; Simon Farrell; Lucy A Ellis; Iain D Gilchrist
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2009-06-10       Impact factor: 3.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.