Literature DB >> 21903593

Top-down dimensional weight set determines the capture of visual attention: evidence from the PCN component.

Thomas Töllner1, Hermann J Müller, Michael Zehetleitner.   

Abstract

Visual search for feature singletons is slowed when a task-irrelevant, but more salient distracter singleton is concurrently presented. While there is a consensus that this distracter interference effect can be influenced by internal system settings, it remains controversial at what stage of processing this influence starts to affect visual coding. Advocates of the "stimulus-driven" view maintain that the initial sweep of visual processing is entirely driven by physical stimulus attributes and that top-down settings can bias visual processing only after selection of the most salient item. By contrast, opponents argue that top-down expectancies can alter the initial selection priority, so that focal attention is "not automatically" shifted to the location exhibiting the highest feature contrast. To precisely trace the allocation of focal attention, we analyzed the Posterior-Contralateral-Negativity (PCN) in a task in which the likelihood (expectancy) with which a distracter occurred was systematically varied. Our results show that both high (vs. low) distracter expectancy and experiencing a distracter on the previous trial speed up the timing of the target-elicited PCN. Importantly, there was no distracter-elicited PCN, indicating that participants did not shift attention to the distracter before selecting the target. This pattern unambiguously demonstrates that preattentive vision is top-down modifiable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21903593     DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhr231

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cereb Cortex        ISSN: 1047-3211            Impact factor:   5.357


  22 in total

1.  How the speed of motor-response decisions, but not focal-attentional selection, differs as a function of task set and target prevalence.

Authors:  Thomas Töllner; Dragan Rangelov; Hermann J Müller
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-06-25       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Contingent capture in cueing: the role of color search templates and cue-target color relations.

Authors:  Ulrich Ansorge; Stefanie I Becker
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2013-06-27

3.  Perturbing Neural Representations of Working Memory with Task-irrelevant Interruption.

Authors:  Nicole Hakim; Tobias Feldmann-Wüstefeld; Edward Awh; Edward K Vogel
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Predictive distractor context facilitates attentional selection of high, but not intermediate and low, salience targets.

Authors:  Thomas Töllner; Markus Conci; Hermann J Müller
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  Attentional weights in vision as products of spatial and nonspatial components.

Authors:  Maria Nordfang; Camilla Staugaard; Claus Bundesen
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-06

Review 6.  Brain connectivity and visual attention.

Authors:  Emily L Parks; David J Madden
Journal:  Brain Connect       Date:  2013-06-08

7.  Dimension-based attention in visual short-term memory.

Authors:  Michael Pilling; Doug J K Barrett
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2016-07

8.  Two Independent Frontal Midline Theta Oscillations during Conflict Detection and Adaptation in a Simon-Type Manual Reaching Task.

Authors:  Thomas Töllner; Yijun Wang; Scott Makeig; Hermann J Müller; Tzyy-Ping Jung; Klaus Gramann
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2017-01-30       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Value-driven attentional capture is modulated by the contents of working memory: An EEG study.

Authors:  T Hinault; K J Blacker; M Gormley; B A Anderson; S M Courtney
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 3.282

10.  When Does Feature Search Fail to Protect Against Attentional Capture?

Authors:  Tashina Graves; Howard E Egeth
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2016-03-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.