Literature DB >> 29437930

Bottom-Up and Top-Down Factors Differentially Influence Stimulus Representations Across Large-Scale Attentional Networks.

Nicole M Long1, Brice A Kuhl1.   

Abstract

Visual attention is thought to be supported by three large-scale frontoparietal networks: the frontoparietal control network (FPCN), the dorsal attention network (DAN), and the ventral attention network (VAN). The traditional view is that these networks support visual attention by biasing and evaluating sensory representations in visual cortical regions. However, recent evidence suggests that frontoparietal regions actively represent perceptual stimuli. Here, we assessed how perceptual stimuli are represented across large-scale frontoparietal and visual networks. Specifically, we tested whether representations of stimulus features across these networks are differentially sensitive to bottom-up and top-down factors. In a pair of pattern-based fMRI studies, male and female human subjects made perceptual decisions about face images that varied along two independent dimensions: gender and affect. Across studies, we interrupted bottom-up visual input using backward masks. Within studies, we manipulated which stimulus features were goal relevant (i.e., whether gender or affect was relevant) and task switching (i.e., whether the goal on the current trial matched the goal on the prior trial). We found that stimulus features could be reliably decoded from all four networks and, importantly, that subregions within each attentional network maintained coherent representations. Critically, the different attentional manipulations (interruption, goal relevance, and task switching) differentially influenced feature representations across networks. Whereas visual interruption had a relatively greater influence on representations in visual regions, goal relevance and task switching had a relatively greater influence on representations in frontoparietal networks. Therefore, large-scale brain networks can be dissociated according to how attention influences the feature representations that they maintain.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Visual attention is supported by multiple frontoparietal attentional networks. However, it remains unclear how stimulus features are represented within these networks and how they are influenced by attention. Here, we assessed feature representations in four large-scale networks using a perceptual decision-making paradigm in which we manipulated top-down and bottom-up factors. We found that top-down manipulations such as goal relevance and task switching modulated feature representations in attentional networks, whereas bottom-up manipulations such as interruption of visual processing had a relatively stronger influence on feature representations in visual regions. Together, these findings indicate that attentional networks actively represent stimulus features and that representations within different large-scale networks are influenced by different forms of attention.
Copyright © 2018 the authors 0270-6474/18/382495-10$15.00/0.

Entities:  

Keywords:  attention; cognitive control; decoding; parietal cortex; prefrontal cortex; resting-state networks

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29437930      PMCID: PMC5858593          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2724-17.2018

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


  60 in total

1.  Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images.

Authors:  Mark Jenkinson; Peter Bannister; Michael Brady; Stephen Smith
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 2.  Reevaluating the Sensory Account of Visual Working Memory Storage.

Authors:  Yaoda Xu
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 3.  Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL.

Authors:  Stephen M Smith; Mark Jenkinson; Mark W Woolrich; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Peter R Bannister; Marilena De Luca; Ivana Drobnjak; David E Flitney; Rami K Niazy; James Saunders; John Vickers; Yongyue Zhang; Nicola De Stefano; J Michael Brady; Paul M Matthews
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Decoding sequential stages of task preparation in the human brain.

Authors:  Stefan Bode; John-Dylan Haynes
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2008-12-09       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Involvement of the dorsal and ventral attention networks in oddball stimulus processing: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hongkeun Kim
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2013-07-30       Impact factor: 5.038

6.  Decoding cognitive control in human parietal cortex.

Authors:  Michael Esterman; Yu-Chin Chiu; Benjamin J Tamber-Rosenau; Steven Yantis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-10-05       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  PFC neurons reflect categorical decisions about ambiguous stimuli.

Authors:  Jefferson E Roy; Timothy J Buschman; Earl K Miller
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  Attention enhances multi-voxel representation of novel objects in frontal, parietal and visual cortices.

Authors:  Alexandra Woolgar; Mark A Williams; Anina N Rich
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 9.  Top-down modulation: bridging selective attention and working memory.

Authors:  Adam Gazzaley; Anna C Nobre
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2011-12-28       Impact factor: 20.229

10.  Control of spatial and feature-based attention in frontoparietal cortex.

Authors:  Adam S Greenberg; Michael Esterman; Daryl Wilson; John T Serences; Steven Yantis
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-10-27       Impact factor: 6.167

View more
  16 in total

Review 1.  Template-to-distractor distinctiveness regulates visual search efficiency.

Authors:  Joy J Geng; Phillip Witkowski
Journal:  Curr Opin Psychol       Date:  2019-01-11

2.  Does intrinsic reward motivate cognitive control? a naturalistic-fMRI study based on the synchronization theory of flow.

Authors:  Richard Huskey; Britney Craighead; Michael B Miller; René Weber
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 3.282

3.  Parietal Representations of Stimulus Features Are Amplified during Memory Retrieval and Flexibly Aligned with Top-Down Goals.

Authors:  Serra E Favila; Rosalie Samide; Sarah C Sweigart; Brice A Kuhl
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-07-27       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 4.  The Posterior Parietal Cortex in Adaptive Visual Processing.

Authors:  Yaoda Xu
Journal:  Trends Neurosci       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 13.837

5.  Both default and multiple-demand regions represent semantic goal information.

Authors:  Xiuyi Wang; Zhiyao Gao; Jonathan Smallwood; Elizabeth Jefferies
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 6.  Transforming the Concept of Memory Reactivation.

Authors:  Serra E Favila; Hongmi Lee; Brice A Kuhl
Journal:  Trends Neurosci       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 13.837

7.  Cortical Representations of Visual Stimuli Shift Locations with Changes in Memory States.

Authors:  Nicole M Long; Brice A Kuhl
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 10.834

8.  Large-scale reconfiguration of connectivity patterns among attentional networks during context-dependent adjustment of cognitive control.

Authors:  Yilu Li; Yanqing Wang; Fangwen Yu; Antao Chen
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 5.038

9.  Attentional Guidance and Match Decisions Rely on Different Template Information During Visual Search.

Authors:  Xinger Yu; Timothy D Hanks; Joy J Geng
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2021-12-08

10.  The functional dissociation of posterior parietal regions during multimodal memory formation.

Authors:  Julia Jablonowski; Michael Rose
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2022-04-09       Impact factor: 5.399

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.