Competition between auditory and visual spatial cues during visual task performance

There is debate in the crossmodal cueing literature as to whether capture of visual attention by means of sound is a fully automatic process. Recent studies show that when visual attention is endogenously focused sound still captures attention. The current study investigated whether there is interaction between exogenous auditory and visual capture. Participants preformed an orthogonal cueing task, in which, the visual target was preceded by both a peripheral visual and auditory cue. When both cues were presented at chance level, visual and auditory capture was observed. However, when the validity of the visual cue was increased to 80% only visual capture and no auditory capture was observed. Furthermore, a highly predictive (80% valid) auditory cue was not able to prevent visual capture. These results demonstrate that crossmodal auditory capture does not occur when a competing predictive visual event is presented and is therefore not a fully automatic process

Stay Tuned: What Is Special About Not Shifting Attention?

Background: When studying attentional orienting processes, brain activity elicited by symbolic cue is usually compared to a neutral condition in which no information is provided about the upcoming target location. It is generally assumed that when a neutral cue is provided, participants do not shift their attention. The present study sought to validate this assumption. We further investigated whether anticipated task demands had an impact on brain activity related to processing symbolic cues. Methodology/Principal Findings: Two experiments were conducted, during which event-related potentials were elicited by symbolic cues that instructed participants to shift their attention to a particular location on a computer screen. In Experiment 1, attention shift-inducing cues were compared to non-informative cues, while in both conditions participants were required to detect target stimuli that were subsequently presented at peripheral locations. In Experiment 2, a non-ambiguous "stay-central'' cue that explicitly required participants not to shift their attention was used instead. In the latter case, target stimuli that followed a stay-central cue were also presented at a central location. Both experiments revealed enlarged early latency contralateral ERP components to shift-inducing cues compared to those elicited by either non-informative (exp. 1) or stay-central cues (exp. 2). In addition, cueing effects were modulated by the anticipated difficulty of the upcoming target, particularly so in Experiment 2. A positive difference, predominantly over the posterior contralateral scalp areas, could be observed for stay-central cues, especially for those predicting that the upcoming target would be easy. This effect was not present for non-informative cues. Conclusions/Significance: We interpret our result in terms of a more rapid engagement of attention occurring in the presence of a more predictive instruction (i.e. stay-central easy target). Our results indicate that the human brain is capable of very rapidly identifying the difference between different types of instructions

Slower Visuomotor Corrections with Unchanged Latency are Consistent with Optimal Adaptation to Increased Endogenous Noise in the Elderly

We analyzed age-related changes in motor response in a visuomotor compensatory tracking task. Subjects used a manipulandum to attempt to keep a displayed cursor at the center of a screen despite random perturbations to its location. Cross-correlation analysis of the perturbation and the subject response showed no age-related increase in latency until the onset of response to the perturbation, but substantial slowing of the response itself. Results are consistent with age-related deterioration in the ratio of signal to noise in visuomotor response. The task is such that it is tractable to use Bayesian and quadratic optimality assumptions to construct a model for behavior. This model assumes that behavior resembles an optimal controller subject to noise, and parametrizes response in terms of latency, willingness to expend effort, noise intensity, and noise bandwidth. The model is consistent with the data for all young (n = 12, age 20–30) and most elderly (n = 12, age 65–92) subjects. The model reproduces the latency result from the cross-correlation method. When presented with increased noise, the computational model reproduces the experimentally observed age-related slowing and the observed lack of increased latency. The model provides a precise way to quantitatively formulate the long-standing hypothesis that age-related slowing is an adaptation to increased noise

Spatial Language Processing in the Blind: Evidence for a Supramodal Representation and Cortical Reorganization

Neuropsychological and imaging studies have shown that the left supramarginal gyrus (SMG) is specifically involved in processing spatial terms (e.g. above, left of), which locate places and objects in the world. The current fMRI study focused on the nature and specificity of representing spatial language in the left SMG by combining behavioral and neuronal activation data in blind and sighted individuals. Data from the blind provide an elegant way to test the supramodal representation hypothesis, i.e. abstract codes representing spatial relations yielding no activation differences between blind and sighted. Indeed, the left SMG was activated during spatial language processing in both blind and sighted individuals implying a supramodal representation of spatial and other dimensional relations which does not require visual experience to develop. However, in the absence of vision functional reorganization of the visual cortex is known to take place. An important consideration with respect to our finding is the amount of functional reorganization during language processing in our blind participants. Therefore, the participants also performed a verb generation task. We observed that only in the blind occipital areas were activated during covert language generation. Additionally, in the first task there was functional reorganization observed for processing language with a high linguistic load. As the visual cortex was not specifically active for spatial contents in the first task, and no reorganization was observed in the SMG, the latter finding further supports the notion that the left SMG is the main node for a supramodal representation of verbal spatial relations

External and Internal Spatial Attention: Selection of visual information from the outside or the inner world

These data are related to a study that will be published in Frontiers in Cognition, in 2023 in a special issue related to attention. Van der Lubbe RHJ, Panek B, Jahangier I and Asanowicz D (2023) Lateralized connectivity in the alpha band between parietal and occipital sources when spatial attention is externally and internally directed. Front. Cognit. 2:1145854. doi: 10.3389/fcogn.2023.1145854 With pre- and post-cues we examined whether effects on lateralized brain activity in the alpha and theta band is comparable when visual information is presented externally, or when it has to be retrieved from visual memory

Qualitative differences between conscious and nonconscious processing? On inverse priming induced by masked arrows

In general, both consciously and unconsciously perceived stimuli facilitate responses to following similar stimuli. However, masked arrows delay responses to following arrows. This inverse priming has been ascribed to inhibition of premature motor activation, more recently even to special processing of nonconsciously perceived material. Here, inverse priming depended on particular masks, was insensitive to contextual requirements for increased inhibition, and was constant across response speeds. Putative signs of motor inhibition in the electroencephalogram may as well reflect activation of the opposite response. Consequently, rather than profiting from inhibition of primed responses, the alternative response is directly primed by perceptual interactions of primes and masks. Thus there is no need to assume separate pathways for nonconscious and conscious processing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved