Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
NARROW
Format
Journal
TocHeadingTitle
Date
Availability
1-2 of 2
Anders Petersen
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 (2018) 30 (4): 482–497.
Published: 01 April 2018
FIGURES
| View All (5)
Abstract
View article
PDF
Selective attention controls the distribution of our visual system's limited processing resources to stimuli in the visual field. Two independent parameters of visual selection can be quantified by modeling an individual's performance in a partial-report task based on the computational theory of visual attention (TVA): (i) top–down control α, the relative attentional weighting of relevant over irrelevant stimuli, and (ii) spatial bias w λ , the relative attentional weighting of stimuli in the left versus right hemifield. In this study, we found that visual event-related electroencephalographic lateralizations marked interindividual differences in these two functions. First, individuals with better top–down control showed higher amplitudes of the posterior contralateral negativity than individuals with poorer top–down control. Second, differences in spatial bias were reflected in asymmetries in earlier visual event-related lateralizations depending on the hemifield position of targets; specifically, individuals showed a positivity contralateral to targets presented in their prioritized hemifield and a negativity contralateral to targets presented in their nonprioritized hemifield. Thus, our findings demonstrate that two functionally different aspects of attentional weighting quantified in the respective TVA parameters are reflected in two different neurophysiological measures: The observer-dependent spatial bias influences selection by a bottom–up processing advantage of stimuli appearing in the prioritized hemifield. By contrast, task-related target selection governed by top–down control involves active enhancement of target, and/or suppression of distractor, processing. These results confirm basic assumptions of the TVA framework, complement the functional interpretation of event-related lateralization components in selective attention studies, and are of relevance for the development of neurocognitive attentional assessment procedures.
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (2012) 24 (3): 749–759.
Published: 01 March 2012
FIGURES
Abstract
View article
PDF
The question whether attentional capture by salient but task-irrelevant visual stimuli is triggered in a bottom–up fashion or depends on top–down task settings is still unresolved. Strong support for bottom–up capture was obtained in the additional singleton task, in which search arrays were visible until response onset. Equally strong evidence for top–down control of attentional capture was obtained in spatial cueing experiments in which display durations were very brief. To demonstrate the critical role of temporal task demands on salience-driven attentional capture, we measured ERP indicators of capture by task-irrelevant color singletons in search arrays that could also contain a shape target. In Experiment 1, all displays were visible until response onset. In Experiment 2, display duration was limited to 200 msec. With long display durations, color singleton distractors elicited an N2pc component that was followed by a late Pd component, suggesting that they triggered attentional capture, which was later replaced by location-specific inhibition. When search arrays were visible for only 200 msec, the distractor-elicited N2pc was eliminated and was replaced by a Pd component in the same time range, indicative of rapid suppression of capture. Results show that attentional capture by salient distractors can be inhibited for short-duration search displays, in which it would interfere with target processing. They demonstrate that salience-driven capture is not a purely bottom–up phenomenon but is subject to top–down control.