Literature DB >> 33634356

Predictive remapping leaves a behaviorally measurable attentional trace on eye-centered brain maps.

Chuyao Yan1,2, Tao He3, Zhiguo Wang4,5.   

Abstract

How does the brain maintain spatial attention despite the retinal displacement of objects by saccades? A possible solution is to use the vector of an upcoming saccade to compensate for the shift of objects on eye-centered (retinotopic) brain maps. In support of this hypothesis, previous studies have revealed attentional effects at the future retinal locus of an attended object, just before the onset of saccades. A critical yet unresolved theoretical issue is whether predictively remapped attentional effects would persist long enough on eye-centered brain maps, so no external input (goal, expectation, reward, memory, etc.) is needed to maintain spatial attention immediately following saccades. The present study examined this issue with inhibition of return (IOR), an attentional effect that reveals itself in both world-centered and eye-centered coordinates, and predictively remaps before saccades. In the first task, a saccade was introduced to a cueing task ("nonreturn-saccade task") to show that IOR is coded in world-centered coordinates following saccades. In a second cueing task, two consecutive saccades were executed to trigger remapping and to dissociate the retinal locus relevant to remapping from the cued retinal locus ("return-saccade" task). IOR was observed at the remapped retinal locus 430-ms following the (first) saccade that triggered remapping. A third cueing task ("no-remapping" task) further revealed that the lingering IOR effect left by remapping was not confounded by the attention spillover. These results together show that predictive remapping leaves a robust attentional trace on eye-centered brain maps. This retinotopic trace is sufficient to sustain spatial attention for a few hundred milliseconds following saccades.
© 2021. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Eye movements; Inhibition of return; Predictive remapping; Spatial attention; Visual stability

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33634356     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-021-01893-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  43 in total

1.  The spatial distribution of inhibition of return.

Authors:  P J Bennett; J Pratt
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2001-01

2.  Oculocentric coding of inhibited eye movements to recently attended locations.

Authors:  R A Abrams; J Pratt
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  The updating of the representation of visual space in parietal cortex by intended eye movements.

Authors:  J R Duhamel; C L Colby; M E Goldberg
Journal:  Science       Date:  1992-01-03       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 4.  Visual and oculomotor selection: links, causes and implications for spatial attention.

Authors:  Edward Awh; Katherine M Armstrong; Tirin Moore
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2006-02-15       Impact factor: 20.229

5.  G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.

Authors:  Franz Faul; Edgar Erdfelder; Albert-Georg Lang; Axel Buchner
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2007-05

6.  Inhibition of return to successively stimulated locations in a sequential visual search paradigm.

Authors:  S Danziger; A Kingstone; J J Snyder
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Object-Feature Binding Survives Dynamic Shifts of Spatial Attention.

Authors:  Emma Wu Dowd; Julie D Golomb
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2019-01-29

8.  Spatiotopic selectivity of BOLD responses to visual motion in human area MT.

Authors:  Giovanni d'Avossa; Michela Tosetti; Sofia Crespi; Laura Biagi; David C Burr; Maria Concetta Morrone
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2006-12-31       Impact factor: 24.884

9.  Visual stability based on remapping of attention pointers.

Authors:  Patrick Cavanagh; Amelia R Hunt; Arash Afraz; Martin Rolfs
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2010-02-26       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 10.  Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy.

Authors:  Edward Awh; Artem V Belopolsky; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2012-07-12       Impact factor: 20.229

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.