Literature DB >> 25274817

Sensory gain outperforms efficient readout mechanisms in predicting attention-related improvements in behavior.

Sirawaj Itthipuripat1, Edward F Ester2, Sean Deering2, John T Serences3.   

Abstract

Spatial attention has been postulated to facilitate perceptual processing via several different mechanisms. For instance, attention can amplify neural responses in sensory areas (sensory gain), mediate neural variability (noise modulation), or alter the manner in which sensory signals are selectively read out by postsensory decision mechanisms (efficient readout). Even in the context of simple behavioral tasks, it is unclear how well each of these mechanisms can account for the relationship between attention-modulated changes in behavior and neural activity because few studies have systematically mapped changes between stimulus intensity, attentional focus, neural activity, and behavioral performance. Here, we used a combination of psychophysics, event-related potentials (ERPs), and quantitative modeling to explicitly link attention-related changes in perceptual sensitivity with changes in the ERP amplitudes recorded from human observers. Spatial attention led to a multiplicative increase in the amplitude of an early sensory ERP component (the P1, peaking ∼80-130 ms poststimulus) and in the amplitude of the late positive deflection component (peaking ∼230-330 ms poststimulus). A simple model based on signal detection theory demonstrates that these multiplicative gain changes were sufficient to account for attention-related improvements in perceptual sensitivity, without a need to invoke noise modulation. Moreover, combining the observed multiplicative gain with a postsensory readout mechanism resulted in a significantly poorer description of the observed behavioral data. We conclude that, at least in the context of relatively simple visual discrimination tasks, spatial attention modulates perceptual sensitivity primarily by modulating the gain of neural responses during early sensory processing.
Copyright © 2014 the authors 0270-6474/14/3313384-15$15.00/0.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EEG; attention; contrast discrimination; contrast response function; efficient readout; sensory gain

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25274817      PMCID: PMC4180474          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2277-14.2014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci        ISSN: 0270-6474            Impact factor:   6.167


  85 in total

1.  The psychophysics of visual search.

Authors:  J Palmer; P Verghese; M Pavel
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  Visual event-related potentials index focused attention within bilateral stimulus arrays. II. Functional dissociation of P1 and N1 components.

Authors:  S J Luck; H J Heinze; G R Mangun; S A Hillyard
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1990-06

3.  Attention induces synchronization-based response gain in steady-state visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  Yee Joon Kim; Marcia Grabowecky; Ken A Paller; Krishnakumar Muthu; Satoru Suzuki
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2006-12-17       Impact factor: 24.884

4.  Spatial attention decorrelates intrinsic activity fluctuations in macaque area V4.

Authors:  Jude F Mitchell; Kristy A Sundberg; John H Reynolds
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2009-09-24       Impact factor: 17.173

Review 5.  Event-related brain potentials in the study of visual selective attention.

Authors:  S A Hillyard; L Anllo-Vento
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1998-02-03       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

7.  The spatial allocation of visual attention as indexed by event-related brain potentials.

Authors:  G R Mangun; S A Hillyard
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 2.888

8.  Contrast evoked responses in man.

Authors:  H Spekreijse; L H van der Twell; T Zuidema
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1973-08       Impact factor: 1.886

9.  Contrast masking in human vision.

Authors:  G E Legge; J M Foley
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am       Date:  1980-12

10.  Comparison of psychophysical, electrophysiological, and fMRI assessment of visual contrast responses in patients with schizophrenia.

Authors:  Daniel J Calderone; Antígona Martinez; Vance Zemon; Matthew J Hoptman; George Hu; Jade E Watkins; Daniel C Javitt; Pamela D Butler
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 6.556

View more
  22 in total

1.  Optimization of a motor learning attention-directing strategy based on an individual's motor imagery ability.

Authors:  Takeshi Sakurada; Masahiro Hirai; Eiju Watanabe
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Value-based attentional capture influences context-dependent decision-making.

Authors:  Sirawaj Itthipuripat; Kexin Cha; Napat Rangsipat; John T Serences
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-05-20       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  When Conflict Cannot be Avoided: Relative Contributions of Early Selection and Frontal Executive Control in Mitigating Stroop Conflict.

Authors:  Sirawaj Itthipuripat; Sean Deering; John T Serences
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 5.357

4.  Functional MRI and EEG Index Complementary Attentional Modulations.

Authors:  Sirawaj Itthipuripat; Thomas C Sprague; John T Serences
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Covert Attention Increases the Gain of Stimulus-Evoked Population Codes.

Authors:  Joshua J Foster; William Thyer; Janna W Wennberg; Edward Awh
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Effects of Stimulus Size and Contrast on the Initial Primary Visual Cortical Response in Humans.

Authors:  Nigel Gebodh; M Isabel Vanegas; Simon P Kelly
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2017-05-04       Impact factor: 3.020

Review 7.  Visual attention mitigates information loss in small- and large-scale neural codes.

Authors:  Thomas C Sprague; Sameer Saproo; John T Serences
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 20.229

8.  Having More Choices Changes How Human Observers Weight Stable Sensory Evidence.

Authors:  Sirawaj Itthipuripat; Kexin Cha; Sean Deering; Annalisa M Salazar; John T Serences
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-08-24       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Expectations Do Not Alter Early Sensory Processing during Perceptual Decision-Making.

Authors:  Nuttida Rungratsameetaweemana; Sirawaj Itthipuripat; Annalisa Salazar; John T Serences
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Dissociable signatures of visual salience and behavioral relevance across attentional priority maps in human cortex.

Authors:  Thomas C Sprague; Sirawaj Itthipuripat; Vy A Vo; John T Serences
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 2.714

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.