Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
NARROW
Format
Journal
Date
Availability
1-3 of 3
Stefan Van der Stigchel
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 (2024) 36 (5): 800–814.
Published: 01 May 2024
FIGURES
| View All (5)
Abstract
View article
PDF
Visual working memory (VWM) allows storing goal-relevant information to guide future behavior. Prior work suggests that VWM is spatially organized and relies on spatial attention directed toward locations at which memory items were encoded, even if location is task-irrelevant. Importantly, attention often needs to be dynamically redistributed between locations, for example, in preparation for an upcoming probe. Very little is known about how attentional resources are distributed between multiple locations during a VWM task and even less about the dynamic changes governing such attentional shifts over time. This is largely due to the inability to use behavioral outcomes to reveal fast dynamic changes within trials. We here demonstrated that EEG steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs) successfully track the dynamic allocation of spatial attention during a VWM task. Participants were presented with to-be-memorized gratings and distractors at two distinct locations, tagged with flickering discs. This allowed us to dynamically track attention allocated to memory and distractor items via their coupling with space by quantifying the amplitude and coherence of SSVEP responses in the EEG signal to flickering stimuli at the former memory and distractor locations. SSVEP responses did not differ between memory and distractor locations during early maintenance. However, shortly before probe comparison, we observed a decrease in SSVEP coherence over distractor locations indicative of a reallocation of spatial attentional resources. RTs were shorter when preceded by stronger decreases in SSVEP coherence at distractor locations, likely reflecting attentional shifts from the distractor to the probe or memory location. We demonstrate that SSVEPs can inform about dynamic processes in VWM, even if location does not have to be reported by participants. This finding not only supports the notion of a spatially organized VWM but also reveals that SSVEPs betray a dynamic prioritization process of working memory items and locations over time that is directly predictive of memory performance.
Journal Articles
Nathan Van der Stoep, Stefan Van der Stigchel, Renske C. Van Engelen, J. Matthijs Biesbroek, Tanja C. W. Nijboer
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (2019) 31 (6): 885–899.
Published: 01 June 2019
FIGURES
Abstract
View article
PDF
The integration of information from multiple senses leads to a plethora of behavioral benefits, most predominantly to faster and better detection, localization, and identification of events in the environment. Although previous studies of multisensory integration (MSI) in humans have provided insights into the neural underpinnings of MSI, studies of MSI at a behavioral level in individuals with brain damage are scarce. Here, a well-known psychophysical paradigm (the redundant target paradigm) was employed to quantify MSI in a group of stroke patients. The relation between MSI and lesion location was analyzed using lesion subtraction analysis. Twenty-one patients with ischemic infarctions and 14 healthy control participants responded to auditory, visual, and audiovisual targets in the left and right visual hemifield. Responses to audiovisual targets were faster than to unisensory targets. This could be due to MSI or statistical facilitation. Comparing the audiovisual RTs to the winner of a race between unisensory signals allowed us to determine whether participants could integrate auditory and visual information. The results indicated that (1) 33% of the patients showed an impairment in MSI; (2) patients with MSI impairment had left hemisphere and brainstem/cerebellar lesions; and (3) the left caudate, left pallidum, left putamen, left thalamus, left insula, left postcentral and precentral gyrus, left central opercular cortex, left amygdala, and left OFC were more often damaged in patients with MSI impairments. These results are the first to demonstrate the impact of brain damage on MSI in stroke patients using a well-established psychophysical paradigm.
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (2008) 20 (11): 2025–2036.
Published: 01 November 2008
Abstract
View article
PDF
There is evidence that some visual information in blind regions may still be processed in patients with hemifield defects after cerebral lesions (“blindsight”). We tested the hypothesis that, in the absence of retinogeniculostriate processing, residual retinotectal processing may still be detected as modifications of saccades to seen targets by irrelevant distractors in the blind hemifield. Six patients were presented with distractors in the blind and intact portions of their visual field and participants were instructed to make eye movements to targets in the intact field. Eye movements were recorded to determine if blind-field distractors caused deviation in saccadic trajectories. No deviation was found in one patient with an optic chiasm lesion, which affect both retinotectal and retinogeniculostriate pathways. In five patients with lesions of the optic radiations or the striate cortex, the results were mixed, with two of the five patients showing significant deviations of saccadic trajectory away from the “blind” distractor. In a second experiment, two of the five patients were tested with the target and the distractor more closely aligned. Both patients showed a “global effect,” in that saccades deviated toward the distractor, but the effect was stronger in the patient who also showed significant trajectory deviation in the first experiment. Although our study confirms that distractor effects on saccadic trajectory can occur in patients with damage to the retinogeniculostriate visual pathway but preserved retinotectal projections, there remain questions regarding what additional factors are required for these effects to manifest themselves in a given patient.