Habitual versus goal-driven attention

Recent research has expanded the list of factors that control spatial attention. Beside current goals and perceptual salience, statistical learning, reward, motivation and emotion also affect attention. But do these various factors influence spatial attention in the same manner, as suggested by the integrated framework of attention, or do they target different aspects of spatial attention? Here I present evidence that the control of attention may be implemented in two ways. Whereas current goals typically modulate where in space attention is prioritized, search habits affect how one moves attention in space. Using the location probability learning paradigm, I show that a search habit forms when people frequently find a visual search target in one region of space. Attentional cuing by probability learning differs from that by current goals. Probability cuing is implicit and persists long after the probability cue is no longer valid. Whereas explicit goal-driven attention codes space in an environment-centered reference frame, probability cuing is viewer-centered and is insensitive to secondary working memory load and aging. I propose a multi-level framework that separates the source of attentional control from its implementation. Similar to the integrated framework, the multi-level framework considers current goals, perceptual salience, and selection history as major sources of attentional control. However, these factors are implemented in two ways, controlling where spatial attention is allocated and how one shifts attention in space.

Out of body, out of space: Impaired reference frame processing in eating disorders

A distorted body representation is a core symptom in eating disorders (EDs), though its mechanism is unclear. Allocentric lock theory, emphasising the role of reference frame processing in body image, suggests that ED patients may be (b)locked to an (allocentric) representation of their own body stored in long-term memory (e.g., my body is fat) that is not updated (modified) by the (real-time egocentric) perception-driven experience of the physical body. Employing a well-validated virtual reality-based procedure, relative to healthy controls, ED patients showed deficits in the ability to refer to and update a long-term stored (allocentric) representation with (egocentric) perceptual-driven inputs.

Spatial and temporal dynamics of visual search tasks distinguish subtypes of unilateral spatial neglect: Comparison of two cases with viewer-centered and stimulus-centered neglect

We developed a computerised test to evaluate unilateral spatial neglect (USN) using a touchscreen display, and estimated the spatial and temporal patterns of visual search in USN patients. The results between a viewer-centered USN patient and a stimulus-centered USN patient were compared. Two right-brain-damaged patients with USN, a patient without USN, and 16 healthy subjects performed a simple cancellation test, the circle test, a visuomotor search test, and a visual search test. According to the results of the circle test, one USN patient had stimulus-centered neglect and a one had viewer-centered neglect. The spatial and temporal patterns of these two USN patients were compared. The spatial and temporal patterns of cancellation were different in the stimulus-centered USN patient and the viewer-centered USN patient. The viewer-centered USN patient completed the simple cancellation task, but paused when transferring from the right side to the left side of the display. Unexpectedly, this patient did not exhibit rightward attention bias on the visuomotor and visual search tests, but the stimulus-centered USN patient did. The computer-based assessment system provided information on the dynamic visual search strategy of patients with USN. The spatial and temporal pattern of cancellation and visual search were different across the two patients with different subtypes of neglect.