Global Facilitation of Attended Features Is Obligatory and Restricts Divided Attention

Andersen, Søren K.; Hillyard, Steven A.; Müller, Matthias

doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1913-13.2013

Cited by 65 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a second condition, attention was divided across space to opposite directions of motion. We replicated previous behavioral results using similar stimulus conditions and found that performance is better when attention is divided to the same feature than when dividing attention to different features (Andersen et al, 2013;Saenz et al, 2003). These behavioral results suggest that it is not possible to enhance the response to two features independently at two locations.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…These divided attention effects have also been observed in the brain using EEG. Steady-state visually evoked potentials measured the responses to features at different locations and found enhanced activity for the when the same feature value was relevant at two locations relative to when conflicting feature values were relevant (Andersen et al, 2013;Andersen, Muller, & Hillyard, 2015;Forschack, Figure 5. Predicted channel weights from the normalization model of attention for (A) no effect of attention, (B), independent spatial and feature-based attention, and (C), global feature-based attention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Divided attention for feature-based selection in visual cortex

Moreland

Boynton

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feature-based attention can select relevant features such as colors or directions of motion from the visual field irrespective of the spatial position. In visual cortex not only do we see feature-specific attention affecting responses in neurons with receptive fields at an attended location, but that effect also spreads to neurons with receptive fields beyond the spatially relevant location. When only one feature is task relevant, the spread of activity across space can act to facilitate perception of behaviorally relevant stimuli. However, when multiple features are relevant, what is the effect on behavior and brain activity? We tested this question by having observers divide attention between two patches (left and right of fixation) of moving dot stimuli, each containing overlapping upward and downward motion fields. In one condition, subjects performed a task on motion fields moving in the same direction in both patches. In another condition attention was divided between opposite directions of motion. Replicating a previous behavioral study, we found that observers showed better performance when dividing attention to the same directions of motion than opposing directions of motion. We analyzed the BOLD responses while observers performed this task using an inverted encoding model approach that provides estimates of responses to each of the four component dot fields. We found larger responses to the attended components, replicating previous studies of spatial and feature-based attention. However, these effects were much larger when attention was divided to between the same directions of motion than to opposing directions. Our fMRI results in area hMT+ predict our behavioral results by extending the normalization model of attention to include a global feature-based attention component in that leads to suppressed responses to attended stimulus components when attention is directed to opposing directions of motion. Monday, January 27, 2020Methods were preregistered with the open science framework prior to data collection and can be accessed here: https://osf.io/hjm75/

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Divided attention for feature-based selection in visual cortex

Moreland

Boynton

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(A) Superposition of an ERP from the literature (Andersen et al, 2013) and the grand total ERP of all 48 sessions in the current study. We shifted the ERP from the literature by 40 ms to the left and increased the voltage scale by 1.54 times, in order to find the best superposition of these two ERPs.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systems, Subjects, Sessions: To What Extent Do These Factors Influence EEG Data?

Melnik

Legkov

Izdebski

et al. 2017

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lab-based electroencephalography (EEG) techniques have matured over decades of research and can produce high-quality scientific data. It is often assumed that the specific choice of EEG system has limited impact on the data and does not add variance to the results. However, many low cost and mobile EEG systems are now available, and there is some doubt as to the how EEG data vary across these newer systems. We sought to determine how variance across systems compares to variance across subjects or repeated sessions. We tested four EEG systems: two standard research-grade systems, one system designed for mobile use with dry electrodes, and an affordable mobile system with a lower channel count. We recorded four subjects three times with each of the four EEG systems. This setup allowed us to assess the influence of all three factors on the variance of data. Subjects performed a battery of six short standard EEG paradigms based on event-related potentials (ERPs) and steady-state visually evoked potential (SSVEP). Results demonstrated that subjects account for 32% of the variance, systems for 9% of the variance, and repeated sessions for each subject-system combination for 1% of the variance. In most lab-based EEG research, the number of subjects per study typically ranges from 10 to 20, and error of uncertainty in estimates of the mean (like ERP) will improve by the square root of the number of subjects. As a result, the variance due to EEG system (9%) is of the same order of magnitude as variance due to subjects (32%/sqrt(16) = 8%) with a pool of 16 subjects. The two standard research-grade EEG systems had no significantly different means from each other across all paradigms. However, the two other EEG systems demonstrated different mean values from one or both of the two standard research-grade EEG systems in at least half of the paradigms. In addition to providing specific estimates of the variability across EEG systems, subjects, and repeated sessions, we also propose a benchmark to evaluate new mobile EEG systems by means of ERP responses.

show abstract

“…However, whether there are different neural mechanisms by which feature- and location-selection enhance object-based attention remains unclear. Moreover, previous studies have demonstrated that feature-selection can globally improve the processing of all stimuli with the same attended feature (Andersen et al, 2013; Maunsell and Treue, 2006; Saenz et al, 2002; Treue and Martinez-Trujillo, 1999; Zhang and Luck, 2009), and location-selection can be split between discrete regions of space without a cost to the spatial attention effect (McMains and Somers, 2004). We thus predicted that our visual system would be able to process task-irrelevant features of multiple objects simultaneously in an object-based attention task.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attentional selection of multiple objects in the human visual system

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classic theories of object-based attention assume a single object of selection but real-world tasks, such as driving a car, often require attending to multiple objects simultaneously. However, whether object-based attention can operate on more than one object at a time remains unexplored. Here, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to address this question as human participants performed object-based attention tasks that required simultaneous attention to two objects differing in either their features or locations. Simultaneous attention to two objects differing in features (face and house) did not show significantly different responses in the fusiform face area (FFA) or parahippocampal place area (PPA), respectively, compared to attending a single object (face or house), but did enhance the response in the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG). Simultaneous attention to two circular arcs differing in locations did not show significantly different responses in the primary visual cortex (V1) compared to attending a single circular arc, but did enhance the response in the intraparietal sulcus (IPS). These results suggest that object-based attention can simultaneously select at least two objects differing in their features or locations, processes mediated by the frontal and parietal cortex, respectively.

show abstract

Global Facilitation of Attended Features Is Obligatory and Restricts Divided Attention

Cited by 65 publications

References 45 publications

Divided attention for feature-based selection in visual cortex

Divided attention for feature-based selection in visual cortex

Systems, Subjects, Sessions: To What Extent Do These Factors Influence EEG Data?

Attentional selection of multiple objects in the human visual system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About