Literature DB >> 9068828

Transient visual attention is dominated by the magnocellular stream.

B A Steinman1, S B Steinman, S Lehmkuhle.   

Abstract

Robust visual attentional responses are produced by the sudden onset of a visual cue, but the properties of cues that best elicit an attentional response are not fully known. We used the line-motion illusion (Hikosaka et al., 1991) to investigate the optimal cue properties that evoke visual attention. We found that visual attention is driven primarily by the luminance contrast of the cue. Furthermore, by manipulating the spatial, chromatic, and contrast properties of cues, we found that magnocellular (M) stream biased cues always override the response to parvocellular (P) stream biased cues, even when the P stream biased cues are presented first. Our data suggest that cues that preferentially excite the M pathway predominantly capture visual attention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9068828     DOI: 10.1016/s0042-6989(96)00151-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  29 in total

1.  Dynamic sensory sensitivity and children's word decoding skills.

Authors:  J B Talcott; C Witton; M F McLean; P C Hansen; A Rees; G G Green; J F Stein
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2000-03-14       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Early-stage visual processing deficits in schizophrenia.

Authors:  Pamela D Butler; Daniel C Javitt
Journal:  Curr Opin Psychiatry       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.741

3.  Modeling of automatic capture and focusing of visual attention.

Authors:  Teuvo Kohonen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-07-09       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Loss of visual information in neglect: the effect of chromatic- versus luminance-contrast stimuli in a "what" task.

Authors:  Sabrina Pitzalis; Francesco Di Russo; Donatella Spinelli
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-01-15       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 5.  Visual attention as a multilevel selection process.

Authors:  Sabine Kastner; Mark A Pinsk
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.282

Review 6.  Top-down predictions in the cognitive brain.

Authors:  Kestutis Kveraga; Avniel S Ghuman; Moshe Bar
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 2.310

7.  Magnocellular and parvocellular influences on reflexive attention.

Authors:  Anthony J Ries; Joseph B Hopfinger
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Sex-related differences in behavioral and amygdalar responses to compound facial threat cues.

Authors:  Hee Yeon Im; Reginald B Adams; Cody A Cushing; Jasmine Boshyan; Noreen Ward; Kestutis Kveraga
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2018-03-08       Impact factor: 5.038

9.  Differential magnocellular versus parvocellular pathway contributions to the combinatorial processing of facial threat.

Authors:  Reginald B Adams; Hee Yeon Im; Cody Cushing; Jasmine Boshyan; Noreen Ward; Daniel N Albohn; Kestutis Kveraga
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 2.453

10.  Cue contrast modulates the effects of exogenous attention on appearance.

Authors:  Stuart Fuller; Yunsoo Park; Marisa Carrasco
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 1.886

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.