The dorsal attention network (DAN) is known to be involved in shifts of spatial attention or in orienting. However, the involvement of each hemisphere in shifts to either hemifield is still a matter of debate. In this study, interindividual hemifield-specific attentional benefits in RTs were correlated with cue-related BOLD responses specific to directive cues in the left and right frontal and posterior nodes of the DAN, measured in a Spatial Orienting Paradigm. The pattern of correlations was analyzed with respect to its fit with three existing hypotheses of spatial attention control: the contralateral, right dominance, and hybrid hypotheses. Results showed that activation in frontal and parietal nodes of the DAN could explain a significant proportion of the interindividual variance in attentional benefits. Although we found that benefits in the right hemifield correlated with cue-related activity in the left, as well as the right, DAN and that the pattern of correlations fit best with the right dominance hypothesis, there were no significant correlations between left benefits and activation in the right (as well as left) DAN, which precludes the conclusion that our data support the right dominance hypothesis and might instead point toward a potential qualitative difference between leftward and rightward shifts of attention. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that behavioral effects of orienting can be linked to activation changes in the DAN, and it raises new questions with respect to the involvement of the frontal and parietal nodes in each hemisphere in hemifield-specific orienting.

The concept of interhemispheric competition has been very influential in attention research, and the occurrence of biased attention due to an imbalance in posterior parietal cortex (PPC) is well documented. In this context, the vast majority of studies have assessed attentional performance with tasks that did not include an explicit experimental manipulation of attention, and, as a consequence, it remains largely unknown how these findings relate to core attentional constructs such as endogenous and exogenous control and spatial orienting and reorienting. We here addressed this open question by creating an imbalance between left and right PPC with transcranial direct current stimulation, resulting in right-hemispheric dominance, and assessed performance on three experimental paradigms that isolate distinct attentional processes. The comparison between active and sham transcranial direct current stimulations revealed a highly informative pattern of results with differential effects across tasks. Our results demonstrate the functional necessity of PPC for endogenous and exogenous attentional control and, importantly, link the concept of interhemispheric competition to core attentional processes, thus moving beyond the notion of biased attention after noninvasive brain stimulation over PPC.

TMS allows noninvasive manipulation of brain activity in healthy participants and patients. The effectiveness of TMS experiments critically depends on precise TMS coil positioning, which is best for most brain areas when a frameless stereotactic system is used to target activation foci based on individual fMRI data. From a purely scientific perspective, individual fMRI-guided TMS is thus the method of choice to ensure optimal TMS efficiency. Yet, from a more practical perspective, such individual functional data are not always available, and therefore alternative TMS coil positioning approaches are often applied, for example, based on functional group data reported in Talairach coordinates. We here propose a novel method for TMS coil positioning that is based on functional group data, yet only requires individual anatomical data. We used cortex-based alignment (CBA) to transform individual anatomical data to an atlas brain that includes probabilistic group maps of two functional regions (FEF and hMT+/V5). Then, these functional group maps were back-transformed to the individual brain anatomy, preserving functional–anatomical correspondence. As a proof of principle, the resulting CBA-based functional targets in individual brain space were compared with individual FEF and hMT+/V5 hotspots as conventionally localized with individual fMRI data and with targets based on Talairach coordinates as commonly done in TMS research in case only individual anatomical data are available. The CBA-based approach significantly improved localization of functional brain areas compared with traditional Talairach-based targeting. Given the widespread availability of CBA schemes and preexisting functional group data, the proposed procedure is easy to implement and at no additional measurement costs. However, the accuracy of individual fMRI-guided TMS remains unparalleled, and the CBA-based approach should only be the method of choice when individual functional data cannot be obtained or experimental factors argue against it.

Lesion studies in neglect patients have inspired two competing models of spatial attention control, namely, Heilman's “hemispatial” theory and Kinsbourne's “opponent processor” model. Both assume a functional asymmetry between the two hemispheres but propose very different mechanisms. Neuroimaging studies have identified a bilateral dorsal frontoparietal network underlying voluntary shifts of spatial attention. However, lateralization of attentional processes within this network has not been consistently reported. In the current study, we aimed to provide direct evidence concerning the functional asymmetry of the right and left FEF during voluntary shifts of spatial attention. To this end, we applied fMRI-guided neuronavigation to disrupt individual FEF activation foci with a longer-lasting inhibitory patterned TMS protocol followed by a spatial cueing task. Our results indicate that right FEF stimulation impaired the ability of shifting spatial attention toward both hemifields, whereas the effects of left FEF stimulation were limited to the contralateral hemifield. These results provide strong direct evidence for right-hemispheric dominance in spatial attention within frontal cortex supporting Heilman's “hemispatial” theory. This complements previous TMS studies that generally conform to Kinsbourne's “opponent processor” model after disruption of parietal cortex, and we therefore propose that both theories are not mutually exclusive.