Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
NARROW
Format
Journal
TocHeadingTitle
Date
Availability
1-3 of 3
Amanda Ellison
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (2012) 24 (11): 2262–2267.
Published: 01 November 2012
FIGURES
Abstract
View article
PDF
Efficient visual exploration requires the ability to select possible target locations via spatial attention and to deselect previously inspected locations via inhibition of return (IOR). Although a great deal is known about the effects of spatial attention on processing in visual cortex, much less is known about the effects of IOR on early visual areas. One possibility is that IOR acts in an opposite way to spatial attention, such that, whereas spatial attention enhances target related neural signals in visual cortex, IOR suppress target-related signals. Using a novel dual-coil TMS protocol, we found that IOR reduced the probability of detecting a TMS-induced phosphene in extrastriate cortex (V5). Specifically, a nonpredictive spatial precue presented 500 or 800 msec before stimulation significantly reduced the probability of detecting a phosphene when the precue appeared contralaterally to the site of stimulation (i.e., ipsilaterally to the potential location of the phosphene), compared with ipsilaterally or centrally presented cues. This result demonstrates that IOR facilitates visual exploration by directly affecting the strength of target-related signals in extrastriate visual cortex. This result is consistent with neurophysiological models of attention, which postulate that IOR modulates perception by biasing competition between sensory representations.
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (2011) 23 (10): 2782–2796.
Published: 01 October 2011
FIGURES
| View All (6)
Abstract
View article
PDF
Judging the sex of faces relies on cues related to facial morphology and spatial relations between features, whereas judging the trustworthiness of faces relies on both structural and expressive cues that signal affective valence. The right occipital face area (OFA) processes structural cues and has been associated with sex judgments, whereas the posterior STS processes changeable facial cues related to muscle movements and is activated when observers judge trustworthiness. It is commonly supposed that the STS receives inputs from the OFA, yet it is unknown whether these regions have functionally dissociable, critical roles in sex and trustworthiness judgments. We addressed this issue using event-related, fMRI-guided repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Twelve healthy volunteers judged the sex of individually presented faces and, in a separate session, whether those same faces were trustworthy or not. Relative to sham stimulation, RTs were significantly longer for sex judgments when rTMS was delivered over the right OFA but not the right or left STS, and for trustworthiness judgments on male but not female faces when rTMS was delivered over the right STS or left STS but not the right OFA. Nonetheless, an analysis of the RT distributions revealed a possible critical role also for the right OFA in trustworthiness judgments, limited to faces with longer RTs, perhaps reflecting the later, ancillary use of structural cues related to the sex of the face. On the whole, our findings provide evidence that evaluations of the trustworthiness and sex of faces rely on functionally dissociable cortical regions.
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (2011) 23 (8): 1964–1972.
Published: 01 August 2011
FIGURES
| View All (4)
Abstract
View article
PDF
Successful interaction with the environment often involves the identification and localization of an item. Right posterior parietal cortex (rPPC) is necessary for the completion of conjunction but not feature visual search, regardless of the attentional requirements. One account for this dissociation is that the rPPC is primarily involved in processing spatial information. For target identification, conjunction tasks require that spatial information is used to determine if features occur at the same location, whereas feature search does not require such a process. This account suggests that if the requirement to localize the target is made explicit, then rPPC may also be necessary for feature search. This was examined using TMS and by manipulating the response mode: Participants were either required to press a button indicating the presence/absence of the target or else had to point to the target. TMS over rPPC did not disrupt performance of the feature task when a button press was required but significantly increased response time and movement time for the same task in the pointing condition. Conjunction search in both response conditions was significantly impaired by TMS. Performance on a task that required pointing to a target in the absence of distractors and thus did not involve visual search was unaffected by rPPC stimulation. We conclude that rPPC is involved in coding and representing spatial information and is therefore crucial when the task requires determining whether two features spatially co-occur or when search is combined with explicit target localization via a visuomotor transformation.