The interacting effect of load and space on visual selective attention

Transcranial magnetic stimulation on the right dorsal attention network modulates the center-surround profile of the attentional focus

Psychophysical observations indicate that the spatial profile of visuospatial attention includes a central enhancement around the attentional focus, encircled by a narrow zone of reduced excitability in the immediate surround. This inhibitory ring optimally amplifies relevant target information, likely stemming from top-down frontoparietal recurrent activity modulating early visual cortex activations. However, the mechanisms through which neural suppression gives rise to the surrounding attenuation and any potential hemispheric specialization remain unclear. We used transcranial magnetic stimulation to evaluate the role of two regions of the dorsal attention network in the center-surround profile: the frontal eye field and the intraparietal sulcus. Participants performed a psychophysical task that mapped the entire spatial attentional profile, while transcranial magnetic stimulation was delivered either to intraparietal sulcus or frontal eye field on the right (Experiment 1) and left (Experiment 2) hemisphere. Results showed that stimulation of right frontal eye field and right intraparietal sulcus significantly changed the center-surround profile, by widening the inhibitory ring around the attentional focus. The stimulation on the left frontal eye field, but not left intraparietal sulcus, induced a general decrease in performance but did not alter the center-surround profile. Results point to a pivotal role of the right dorsal attention network in orchestrating inhibitory spatial mechanisms required to limit interference by surrounding distractors.

Mexican Hat Modulation of Visual Acuity Following an Exogenous Cue

Classical models of exogenous attention suggest that attentional enhancement at the focus of attention degrades gradually with distance from the attended location. On the other hand, the Attentional Attraction Field (AAF) model (Baruch and Yeshurun, 2014) suggests that the shift of receptive fields toward the attended location, reported by several physiological studies, leads to a decreased density of RFs at the attentional surrounds and hence the model predicts that the modulation of performance by spatial attention may have the shape of a Mexican Hat. Motivated by these theories, this study presents behavioral evidence in support of a Mexican Hat shaped modulation in exogenous spatial tasks that appears only at short latencies. In two experiments participants had to decide the location of a small gap in a target circle that was preceded by a non-informative attention capturing cue. The distance between cue and target and the latency between their onsets were varied. At short SOAs the performance curves were cubic and only at longer SOAs- this trend turned linear. Our results suggest that a rapid Mexican Hat modulation is an inherent property of the mechanism underlying exogenous attention and that a monotonically degrading trend, such as advocated by classical models, develops only at later stages of processing. The involvements of bottom-up processes such as the attraction of RFs to the focus of attention are further discussed.

The size of the attentional window when measured by the pupillary response to light

This study measured the size of the attentional window when attention is narrowly focused, using attentional modulation of the pupillary light response - pupillary constriction when covertly attending a brighter than darker area. This allowed us to avoid confounds and biases involved in relying on observers' response (e.g., RT), which contaminated previous measurements of this window. We presented letters to the right and left of fixation, each surrounded by task-irrelevant disks with varying distances. The disks were bright on one side and dark on the other. A central cue indicated which letter to attend. Luminance levels were identical across trials. We found that pupil size was modulated by the disks' luminance when they were 1° away from the attended letter, but not when this distance was larger. This suggests that the diameter of the attentional window is at least 2°, which is twice as large as that established with behavioral measurements.

Probability cueing of distractor locations: both intertrial facilitation and statistical learning mediate interference reduction

Targets in a visual search task are detected faster if they appear in a probable target region as compared to a less probable target region, an effect which has been termed “probability cueing.” The present study investigated whether probability cueing cannot only speed up target detection, but also minimize distraction by distractors in probable distractor regions as compared to distractors in less probable distractor regions. To this end, three visual search experiments with a salient, but task-irrelevant, distractor (“additional singleton”) were conducted. Experiment 1 demonstrated that observers can utilize uneven spatial distractor distributions to selectively reduce interference by distractors in frequent distractor regions as compared to distractors in rare distractor regions. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that intertrial facilitation, i.e., distractor position repetitions, and statistical learning (independent of distractor position repetitions) both contribute to the probability cueing effect for distractor locations. Taken together, the present results demonstrate that probability cueing of distractor locations has the potential to serve as a strong attentional cue for the shielding of likely distractor locations.

Domain-specific control of selective attention

Previous research has shown that loading information on working memory affects selective attention. However, whether the load effect on selective attention is domain-general or domain-specific remains unresolved. The domain-general effect refers to the findings that load in one content (e.g. phonological) domain in working memory influences processing in another content (e.g., visuospatial) domain. Attentional control supervises selection regardless of information domain. The domain-specific effect refers to the constraint of influence only when maintenance and processing operate in the same domain. Selective attention operates in a specific content domain. This study is designed to resolve this controversy. Across three experiments, we manipulated the type of representation maintained in working memory and the type of representation upon which the participants must exert control to resolve conflict and select a target into the focus of attention. In Experiments 1a and 1b, participants maintained digits and nonverbalized objects, respectively, in working memory while selecting a target in a letter array. In Experiment 2, we presented auditory digits with a letter flanker task to exclude the involvement of resource competition within the same input modality. In Experiments 3a and 3b, we replaced the letter flanker task with an object flanker task while manipulating the memory load on object and digit representation, respectively. The results consistently showed that memory load modulated distractibility only when the stimuli of the two tasks were represented in the same domain. The magnitude of distractor interference was larger under high load than under low load, reflecting a lower efficacy of information prioritization. When the stimuli of the two tasks were represented in different domains, memory load did not modulate distractibility. Control of processing priority in selective attention demands domain-specific resources.

Distractors less salient than targets capture attention rather than producing non-spatial filtering costs

Distractors that are less salient than the target evoke reaction time interference in the distractor search paradigm. Here, we investigated whether this interference indeed results from spatial attentional capture or merely from non-spatial filtering costs. Target and distractor salience was manipulated parametrically and the modulation of reaction time interference by the distance between both stimuli was taken as an indicator of attentional capture. For distractors that were less salient than the target, we found distance to be predictive of reaction time interference. Moreover, this relationship was modulated by the difference in relative salience of target and distractor: the less salient the distractor was compared to the target, the weaker was the influence of distance. These results are in accordance with the sequential sampling model of salience-based selection by Zehetleitner et al. (Zehetleitner, M., Koch, A.I., Goschy, H., Müller, H.J., 2013. Salience-based selection: Interference by distractors less salient than the target. PLoS ONE 8: e52595.). This model assumes the salience map to be computed by noisy accumulation of sensory evidence. As a result, the salience map output fluctuates around its true value and less salient locations can be denoted as most salient. A distractor less salient than the target can therefore capture attention with a certain probability. We conclude that reaction time interference by less salient distractors in the distractor search paradigm is a result of attentional capture in a proportion of trials, rather than a result of non-spatial filtering costs.

Effects of load on the time course of attentional engagement, disengagement, and orienting in reading

We examined how the frequency of the fixated word influences the spatiotemporal distribution of covert attention during reading. Participants discriminated gaze-contingent probes that occurred with different spatial and temporal offsets from randomly chosen fixation points during reading. We found that attention was initially focused at fixation and that subsequent defocusing was slower when the fixated word was lower in frequency. Later in a fixation, attention oriented more towards the next saccadic target for high- than for low-frequency words. These results constitute the first report of the time course of the effect of load on attentional engagement and orienting in reading. They are discussed in the context of serial and parallel models of reading.