Literature DB >> 33320084

Neural mechanisms underlying expectation-dependent inhibition of distracting information.

Dirk van Moorselaar1,2,3,4, Eline Lampers1, Elisa Cordesius1, Heleen A Slagter1,2,3,4.   

Abstract

Predictions based on learned statistical regularities in the visual world have been shown to facilitate attention and goal-directed behavior by sharpening the sensory representation of goal-relevant stimuli in advance. Yet, how the brain learns to ignore predictable goal-irrelevant or distracting information is unclear. Here, we used EEG and a visual search task in which the predictability of a distractor's location and/or spatial frequency was manipulated to determine how spatial and feature distractor expectations are neurally implemented and reduce distractor interference. We find that expected distractor features could not only be decoded pre-stimulus, but their representation differed from the representation of that same feature when part of the target. Spatial distractor expectations did not induce changes in preparatory neural activity, but a strongly reduced Pd, an ERP index of inhibition. These results demonstrate that neural effects of statistical learning critically depend on the task relevance and dimension (spatial, feature) of predictions.
© 2020, van Moorselaar et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EEG; attention; human; neuroscience; statistical learning; visual search

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33320084      PMCID: PMC7758066          DOI: 10.7554/eLife.61048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Elife        ISSN: 2050-084X            Impact factor:   8.140


  65 in total

1.  The neural mechanisms of top-down attentional control.

Authors:  J B Hopfinger; M H Buonocore; G R Mangun
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  Pre-target activity in visual cortex predicts behavioral performance on spatial and feature attention tasks.

Authors:  Barry Giesbrecht; Daniel H Weissman; Marty G Woldorff; George R Mangun
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2006-01-17       Impact factor: 3.252

Review 3.  Template-to-distractor distinctiveness regulates visual search efficiency.

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

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

Authors:  Dirk van Moorselaar; Heleen A Slagter
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Neural correlates of prior expectations of motion in the lateral intraparietal and middle temporal areas.

Authors:  Vinod Rao; Gregory C DeAngelis; Lawrence H Snyder
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Electrophysiological correlates of feature analysis during visual search.

Authors:  S J Luck; S A Hillyard
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 4.016

7.  Search goal tunes visual features optimally.

Authors:  Vidhya Navalpakkam; Laurent Itti
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2007-02-15       Impact factor: 17.173

8.  MNE software for processing MEG and EEG data.

Authors:  Alexandre Gramfort; Martin Luessi; Eric Larson; Denis A Engemann; Daniel Strohmeier; Christian Brodbeck; Lauri Parkkonen; Matti S Hämäläinen
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 9.  The Role of Inhibition in Avoiding Distraction by Salient Stimuli.

Authors:  Nicholas Gaspelin; Steven J Luck
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 20.229

10.  Posterior α EEG Dynamics Dissociate Current from Future Goals in Working Memory-Guided Visual Search.

Authors:  Ingmar E J de Vries; Joram van Driel; Christian N L Olivers
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 6.167

View more
  5 in total

1.  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

2.  Statistical distractor learning modulates perceptual sensitivity.

Authors:  Dirk van Moorselaar; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 3.  Ten simple rules to study distractor suppression.

Authors:  Malte Wöstmann; Viola S Störmer; Jonas Obleser; Douglas A Addleman; Søren K Andersen; Nicholas Gaspelin; Joy J Geng; Steven J Luck; MaryAnn P Noonan; Heleen A Slagter; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Prog Neurobiol       Date:  2022-04-12       Impact factor: 10.885

4.  Statistical learning in visual search reflects distractor rarity, not only attentional suppression.

Authors:  Dirk Kerzel; Chiara Balbiani; Sarah Rosa; Stanislas Huynh Cong
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2022-04-20

5.  Memory precision for salient distractors decreases with learned suppression.

Authors:  Bo-Yeong Won; Aditi Venkatesh; Phillip P Witkowski; Timothy Banh; Joy J Geng
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-07-28
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.