Attention, Intention, and Priority in the Parietal Lobe

For many years there has been a debate about the role of the parietal lobe in the generation of behavior. Does it generate movement plans (intention) or choose objects in the environment for further processing? To answer this, we focus on the lateral intraparietal area (LIP), an area that has been shown to play independent roles in target selection for saccades and the generation of visual attention. Based on results from a variety of tasks, we propose that LIP acts as a priority map in which objects are represented by activity proportional to their behavioral priority. We present evidence to show that the priority map combines bottom-up inputs like a rapid visual response with an array of top-down signals like a saccade plan. The spatial location representing the peak of the map is used by the oculomotor system to target saccades and by the visual system to guide visual attention

Integration of Sensory and Reward Information during Perceptual Decision-Making in Lateral Intraparietal Cortex (LIP) of the Macaque Monkey

Single neurons in cortical area LIP are known to carry information relevant to both sensory and value-based decisions that are reported by eye movements. It is not known, however, how sensory and value information are combined in LIP when individual decisions must be based on a combination of these variables. To investigate this issue, we conducted behavioral and electrophysiological experiments in rhesus monkeys during performance of a two-alternative, forced-choice discrimination of motion direction (sensory component). Monkeys reported each decision by making an eye movement to one of two visual targets associated with the two possible directions of motion. We introduced choice biases to the monkeys' decision process (value component) by randomly interleaving balanced reward conditions (equal reward value for the two choices) with unbalanced conditions (one alternative worth twice as much as the other). The monkeys' behavior, as well as that of most LIP neurons, reflected the influence of all relevant variables: the strength of the sensory information, the value of the target in the neuron's response field, and the value of the target outside the response field. Overall, detailed analysis and computer simulation reveal that our data are consistent with a two-stage drift diffusion model proposed by Diederich and Bussmeyer [1] for the effect of payoffs in the context of sensory discrimination tasks. Initial processing of payoff information strongly influences the starting point for the accumulation of sensory evidence, while exerting little if any effect on the rate of accumulation of sensory evidence

The neural instantiation of a priority map

The term priority map is commonly used to describe a map of the visual scene, in which objects and locations are represented by their attentional priority, which itself is a combination of low-level salience and top-down control. The aim of this review is to examine how such a map may be represented at the neuronal level. We propose that there is not a single, common map in the brain, but that a number of cortical areas work together to generate the resultant behavior. Specifically, we suggest that the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) of posterior parietal cortex provides a simple representation of attentional priority, which remaps across saccades, so that there is an apparent allocentric map in a region with retinocentric encoding scheme. We propose that the frontal eye field (FEF) of prefrontal cortex receives the responses from LIP, but can suppress them to control the flow of eye movement behavior, and that the intermediate layers of the superior colliculus (SCi) reflect the final saccade goal. Together, these areas function to guide eye movements and may play a similar role in allocating covert visual attention

The what, where, and why of priority maps and their interactions with visual working memory

Priority maps are winner-take-all neural mechanisms thought to guide the allocation of covert and overt attention. Here, we go beyond this standard definition and argue that priority maps play a much broader role in controlling goal-directed behavior. We start by defining what priority maps are and where they might be found in the brain; we then ask why they exist-the function that they serve. We propose that this function is to communicate a goal state to the different effector systems, thereby guiding behavior. Within this framework, we speculate on how priority maps interact with visual working memory and introduce our common source hypothesis, the suggestion that this goal state is maintained in visual working memory and used to construct all of the priority maps controlling the various motor systems. Finally, we look ahead and suggest questions about priority maps that should be asked next

The unconscious guidance of attention

Cortex special issue editoria

Neurons in FEF Keep Track of Items That Have Been Previously Fixated in Free Viewing Visual Search

When searching a visual scene for a target, we tend not to look at items or locations we have already searched. It is thought that this behavior is driven by an inhibitory tagging mechanism that inhibits responses on priority maps to the relevant items. We hypothesized that this inhibitory tagging signal should be represented as an elevated response in neurons that keep track of stimuli that have been fixated. We recorded from 231 neurons in the frontal eye field (FEF) of 2 male animals performing a visual foraging task, in which they had to find a reward linked to one of five identical targets (Ts) among five distractors. We identified 38 neurons with activity that was significantly greater when the stimulus in the receptive field had been fixated previously in the trial than when it had not been fixated. The response to a fixated object began before the saccade ended, suggesting that this information is remapped. Unlike most FEF neurons, the activity in these cells was not suppressed during active fixation, had minimal motor responses, and did not change through the trial. Yet using traditional classifications from a memory-guided saccade, they were indistinguishable from the rest of the FEF population. We propose that these neurons keep track of any items that have been fixated within the trial and this signal is propagated by remapping. These neurons could be the source of the inhibitory tagging signal to parietal cortex, where a neuronal instantiation of inhibitory tagging is seen.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT When we search a scene for an item, we rarely examine the same location twice. It is thought that this is due to a neural mechanism that keeps track of the items at which we have looked. Here we identified a subset of neurons in the frontal eye field that preferentially responded to items that had been fixated earlier in the trial. These responses were remapped, appearing before the saccade even ended, and were not suppressed during maintained fixation. We propose that these neurons keep track of which items have been examined in search and could be the source of feedback that creates the inhibitory tagging seen in parietal cortex