Literature DB >> 31270162

Learning What Is Irrelevant or Relevant: Expectations Facilitate Distractor Inhibition and Target Facilitation through Distinct Neural Mechanisms.

Dirk van Moorselaar1,2,3,4, Heleen A Slagter5,2,3,4.   

Abstract

It is well known that attention can facilitate performance by top-down biasing processing of task-relevant information in advance. Recent findings from behavioral studies suggest that distractor inhibition is not under similar direct control but strongly dependent on expectations derived from previous experience. Yet, how expectations about distracting information influence distractor inhibition at the neural level remains unclear. The current study addressed this outstanding question in three experiments in which search displays with repeating distractor or target locations across trials allowed human observers (male and female) to learn which location to selectively suppress or boost. Behavioral findings demonstrated that both distractor and target location learning resulted in more efficient search, as indexed by faster response times. Crucially, distractor learning benefits were observed without target location foreknowledge, unaffected by the number of possible target locations, and could not be explained by priming alone. To determine how distractor location expectations facilitated performance, we applied a spatial encoding model to EEG data to reconstruct activity in neural populations tuned to distractor or target locations. Target location learning increased neural tuning to target locations in advance, indicative of preparatory biasing. This sensitivity increased after target presentation. By contrast, distractor expectations did not change preparatory spatial tuning. Instead, distractor expectations reduced distractor-specific processing, as reflected in the disappearance of the Pd event-related potential component, a neural marker of distractor inhibition, and decreased decoding accuracy. These findings suggest that the brain may no longer process expected distractors as distractors, once it has learned they can safely be ignored.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT We constantly try hard to ignore conspicuous events that distract us from our current goals. Surprisingly, and in contrast to dominant attention theories, ignoring distracting, but irrelevant, events does not seem to be as flexible as is focusing our attention on those same aspects. Instead, distractor suppression appears to strongly rely on learned, context-dependent expectations. Here, we investigated how learning about upcoming distractors changes distractor processing and directly contrasted the underlying neural dynamics to target learning. We show that, while target learning enhanced anticipatory sensory tuning, distractor learning only modulated reactive suppressive processing. These results suggest that expected distractors may no longer be considered distractors by the brain once it has learned that they can safely be ignored.
Copyright © 2019 the authors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EEG; attention; brain; expectation; inhibition; statistical learning

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31270162      PMCID: PMC6733564          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0593-19.2019

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


  56 in total

1.  Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects.

Authors:  R P Rao; D H Ballard
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  Serial deployment of attention during visual search.

Authors:  Geoffrey F Woodman; Steven J Luck
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Spatial probability as an attentional cue in visual search.

Authors:  Joy J Geng; Marlene Behrmann
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2005-10

4.  Prior information of stimulus location: effects on ERP measures of visual selection and response selection.

Authors:  Peter Praamstra
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2006-01-09       Impact factor: 3.252

5.  Top-down facilitation of visual recognition.

Authors:  M Bar; K S Kassam; A S Ghuman; J Boshyan; A M Schmid; A M Schmidt; A M Dale; M S Hämäläinen; K Marinkovic; D L Schacter; B R Rosen; E Halgren
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-01-03       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Bayesian inference and attentional modulation in the visual cortex.

Authors:  Rajesh P N Rao
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2005-11-07       Impact factor: 1.837

7.  Feature-based memory-driven attentional capture: visual working memory content affects visual attention.

Authors:  Christian N L Olivers; Frank Meijer; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data.

Authors:  Eric Maris; Robert Oostenveld
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2007-04-10       Impact factor: 2.390

9.  Functional similarities between the P1 component and alpha oscillations.

Authors:  Roman Freunberger; Yvonne Höller; Birgit Griesmayr; Walter Gruber; Paul Sauseng; Wolfgang Klimesch
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.386

10.  Probability cuing of target location facilitates visual search implicitly in normal participants and patients with hemispatial neglect.

Authors:  Joy J Geng; Marlene Behrmann
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2002-11
View more
  22 in total

1.  The guidance of attention by templates for rejection during visual search.

Authors:  Nick Berggren; Martin Eimer
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-11-18       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Changes in visual cortical processing attenuate singleton distraction during visual search.

Authors:  Bo-Yeong Won; Martha Forloines; Zhiheng Zhou; Joy J Geng
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2020-09-12       Impact factor: 4.027

3.  Dissociated Neural Mechanisms of Target and Distractor Processing Facilitated by Expectations.

Authors:  Zhenghan Li; Florian Göschl; Guochun Yang
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-03-04       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  The prevalence and importance of statistical learning in human cognition and behavior.

Authors:  Brynn E Sherman; Kathryn N Graves; Nicholas B Turk-Browne
Journal:  Curr Opin Behav Sci       Date:  2020-02-29

5.  Integrating when and what information in the left parietal lobe allows language rule generalization.

Authors:  Joan Orpella; Pablo Ripollés; Manuela Ruzzoli; Julià L Amengual; Alicia Callejas; Anna Martinez-Alvarez; Salvador Soto-Faraco; Ruth de Diego-Balaguer
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 8.029

6.  Oculomotor suppression of abrupt onsets versus color singletons.

Authors:  Owen J Adams; Eric Ruthruff; Nicholas Gaspelin
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Are self-caused distractors easier to ignore? Experiments with the flanker task.

Authors:  CiJun Gao; Davood G Gozli
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-11-05       Impact factor: 2.199

8.  Strategic Distractor Suppression Improves Selective Control in Human Vision.

Authors:  Wieske van Zoest; Christoph Huber-Huber; Matthew D Weaver; Clayton Hickey
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Distractor probabilities modulate flanker task performance.

Authors:  Eli Bulger; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; Abigail L Noyce
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-11-01       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  Progress Toward Resolving the Attentional Capture Debate.

Authors:  Steven J Luck; Nicholas Gaspelin; Charles L Folk; Roger W Remington; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2020-12-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.