Feature-based attentional selection is accomplished by increasing the gain of sensory neurons encoding target-relevant features while decreasing that of other features. But how do these mechanisms work when targets and distractors share features? We investigated this in a simplified color–shape conjunction search task using ERP components (N2pc, P D , and SPCN) that index lateralized attentional processing. In Experiment 1, we manipulated the presence and frequency of color distractors while holding shape distractors constant. We tested the hypothesis that the color distractor would capture attention, requiring active suppression such that processing of the target can continue. Consistent with this hypothesis, we found that color distractors consistently captured attention, as indexed by a significant N2pc, but were reactively suppressed (indexed by P D ). Interestingly, when the color distractor was present, target processing was sustained (indexed by SPCN), suggesting that the dynamics of attentional competition involved distractor suppression interlinked with sustained target processing. In Experiment 2, we examined the contribution of shape to the dynamics of attentional competition under similar conditions. In contrast to color distractors, shape distractors did not reliably capture attention, even when the color distractor was very frequent and attending to target shape would be beneficial. Together, these results suggest that target-colored objects are prioritized during color–shape conjunction search, and the ability to select the target is delayed while target-colored distractors are actively suppressed.

Visual attention allows the allocation of limited neural processing resources to stimuli based on their behavioral priorities. The selection of task-relevant visual targets entails the processing of multiple competing stimuli and the suppression of distractors that may be either perceptually salient or perceptually similar to targets. The posterior parietal cortex controls the interaction between top–down (task-driven) and bottom–up (stimulus-driven) processes competing for attentional selection, as well as spatial distribution of attention. Here, we examined whether biparietal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) would modulate the interaction between top–down and bottom–up processes in visual attention. Visual attention function was assessed with a visual discrimination task, in which a lateralized target was presented alone or together with a contralateral, similar or salient, distractor. The accuracy and RTs were measured before and during three stimulation sessions (sham, right anodal/left cathodal, left anodal/right cathodal). The analyses demonstrated (i) polarity-dependent effects of tDCS on the accuracy of target discrimination, but only when the target was presented with a similar distractor; (ii) the tDCS-triggered effects on the accuracy of discriminating targets, accompanied by a similar distractor, varied according to the target location; and (iii) overall detrimental effects of tDCS on RTs were observed, regardless of target location, distractor type, and polarity of the stimulation. We conclude that the observed polarity, distractor type, and target location-dependent effects of biparietal tDCS on the accuracy of target detection resulted from both a modulation of the interaction between top–down and bottom–up attentional processes and the interhemispheric competition mechanisms guiding attentional selection and spatial deployment of attention.

When predicting where a target or reward will be, participants tend to choose each location commensurate with the true underlying probability (i.e., probability match). The strategy of probability matching involves independent sampling of high and low probability locations on separate trials. In contrast, models of probabilistic spatial attention hypothesize that on any given trial attention will either be weighted toward the high probability location or be distributed equally across all locations. Thus, the strategies of probabilistic sampling by choice decisions and spatial attention appear to differ with regard to low-probability events. This distinction is somewhat surprising because similar brain mechanisms (e.g., pFC-mediated cognitive control) are thought to be important in both functions. Thus, the goal of the current study was to examine the relationship between choice decisions and attentional selection within single trials to test for any strategic differences, then to determine whether that relationship is malleable to manipulations of catecholamine-modulated cognitive control with the drug modafinil. Our results demonstrate that spatial attention and choice decisions followed different strategies of probabilistic information selection on placebo, but that modafinil brought the pattern of spatial attention into alignment with that of predictive choices. Modafinil also produced earlier learning of the probability distribution. Together, these results suggest that enhancing cognitive control mechanisms (e.g., through prefrontal cortical function) leads spatial attention to follow choice decisions in selecting information according to rule-based expectations.

Frontal eye fields (FEF) and anterior intraparietal sulcus (aIPS) are involved in the control of voluntary attention in humans, but their functional differences remain poorly understood. We examined the activity in these brain regions as a function of task-irrelevant changes in target and nontarget perceptual salience during a sustained spatial attention task. Both aIPS and FEF were engaged during selective attention. FEF, but not aIPS, was sensitive to the direction of spatial attention. Conversely, aIPS, but not FEF, was modulated by the relative perceptual salience of the target and nontarget stimuli. These results demonstrate separable roles for FEF and aIPS in attentional control with FEF more involved in goal-directed spatial attention and aIPS relatively more sensitive to bottom–up attentional influences driven by stimulus salience.

The possible impact upon human visual cortex from saccades to remembered target locations was investigated using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). A specific location in the upper-right or upper-left visual quadrant served as the saccadic target. After a delay of 2400 msec, an auditory signal indicated whether to execute a saccade to that location (go trial) or to cancel the saccade and remain centrally fixated (no-go). Group fMRI analysis revealed activation specific to the remembered target location for executed saccades, in the contralateral lingual gyrus. No-go trials produced similar, albeit significantly reduced, effects. Individual retinotopic mapping confirmed that on go trials, quadrant-specific activations arose in those parts of ventral V1, V2, and V3 that coded the target location for the saccade, whereas on no-go trials, only the corresponding parts of V2 and V3 were significantly activated. These results indicate that a spatial–motor saccadic task (i.e., making an eye movement to a remembered location) is sufficient to activate retinotopic visual cortex spatially corresponding to the target location, and that this activation is also present (though reduced) when no saccade is executed. We discuss the implications of finding that saccades to remembered locations can affect early visual cortex, not just those structures conventionally associated with eye movements, in relation to recent ideas about attention, spatial working memory, and the notion that recently activated representations can be “refreshed” when needed.

We compared the contribution of featural information and second-order spatial relations (spacing between features) in face processing. A fully factorial design has the same or different “features” (eyes, mouth, and nose) across two successive displays, whereas, orthogonally, the second-order spatial relations between those features were the same or different. The range of such changes matched the possibilities within the population of natural face images. Behaviorally, we found that judging whether two successive faces depicted the same person was dominated by features, although second-order spatial relations also contributed. This influence of spatial relations correlated, for individual subjects, with their skill at recognition of faces (as famous, or as previously exposed) in separate behavioral tests. Using the same repetition design in functional magnetic resonance imaging, we found feature-dependent effects in the lateral occipital and right fusiform regions. In addition, there were spatial relation effects in the bilateral inferior occipital gyrus and right fusiform that correlated with individual differences in (separately measured) behavioral sensitivity to those changes. The results suggest that featural and second-order spatial relation aspects of faces make distinct contributions to behavioral discrimination and recognition, with features contributing most to face discrimination and second-order spatial relational aspects correlating best with recognition skills. Distinct neural responses to these aspects were found with functional magnetic resonance imaging, particularly when individual skills were taken into account for the impact of second-order spatial relations.