No abstract

No abstract

Endogenous temporal-orienting effects were studied using a cuing paradigm in which the cue indicated the time interval during which the target was most likely to appear. Temporal-orienting effects were defined by lower reaction times (RTs) when there was a match between the temporal expectancy for a target (early or late) and the time interval during which the target actually appeared than when they mismatched. Temporal-orienting effects were found for both early and late expectancies with a detection task in Experiment 1. However, catch trials were decisive in whether temporal-orienting effects were observed in the early-expectancycondition. No temporal-orienting effects were found in the discrimination task. In Experiments 2A and 2B, temporal-orienting effects were observed in the discrimination task; however, they were larger when temporal expectancy was manipulated between blocks, rather than within blocks.

No abstract

A review of traditional research on preparation and foreperiod has identified strategic (endogenous) and automatic (exogenous) factors probably involved in endogenous temporal-orienting experiments, such as the type of task, the way by which temporal expectancy is manipulated, the probability of target occurrence and automatic sequential effects, yet their combined impact had not been investigated. These factors were manipulated within the same temporal-orienting procedure, in which a temporal cue indicated that the target could appear after an interval of either 400 or 1,400 ms. We observed faster reaction times for validly versus invalidly cued targets, that is, endogenous temporal-orienting effects. The main results were that the probability of target occurrence (catch-trial proportion) modulated temporal orienting, such that the attentional effects at the short interval were independent of catch trials, whereas at the long interval the effects were only observed when catch trials were present. In contrast, the interval duration of the previous trial (i.e., exogenous sequential effects) did not influence endogenous temporal orienting. A flexible and endogenous mechanism of attentional orienting in time can account for these results. Despite the contribution of other factors, the use of predictive temporal cues was sufficient to yield attentional facilitation based on temporal expectancy.

The current study tested whether multiple rhythms could flexibly induce temporal expectations (temporal orienting) and whether these expectations interact with temporal expectations associated with the passage of time (foreperiod effects). A visual stimulus that moved following a regular rhythm was temporarily occluded for a variable duration (occlusion foreperiod). The task involved making a speeded perceptual discrimination about the target stimulus that reappeared after the occlusion. Temporal-orienting effects were measured by comparing performance and event-related potentials on conditions in which the timing for target reappearance was predictable (valid) versus unpredictable (invalid) according to the rhythm. Foreperiod effects were measured by comparing conditions in which the target was occluded for progressively longer periods of time (short, medium, and long foreperiods) and hence were increasingly predictable. The results showed strong interactions between temporal orienting and foreperiod effects during the facilitation of behavior and neural activity associated with late perceptual and response selection processes. Temporal orienting attenuated the N2 amplitude and decreased the P3 latency only at short foreperiods. Temporal preparation related to foreperiod effects abolished temporal orienting effects at medium and long foreperiods. Likewise, foreperiod effects attenuated the N1 and N2 amplitudes and decreased the P3 latency only in the invalid orienting condition as preparation related to temporal orienting abolished foreperiod effects in the valid condition. This high degree of neural overlap between the effects of temporal orienting driven by rhythms and foreperiod effects associated with the passage of time suggests the involvement of a common mechanism for temporal preparation.

This study investigates whether a rhythm can orient attention to specific moments enhancing people's reaction times (RT). We used a modified version of the temporal orienting paradigm in which an auditory isochronous rhythm was presented prior to an auditory single target. The rhythm could have a fast pace (450 ms Inter-Onset-Interval or IOI) or a slow pace (950 ms IOI). The target was presented after a variable foreperiod of either 200, 400, 900, 1400, or 1600 ms following the offset of the rhythm. In Experiment 1, the rhythmic pace validly predicted the moment of target appearance; i.e., the target appeared after a foreperiod that matched the rhythmic pace on 60% of the trials. The results showed an effect on RT performance of the fast rhythmic pace compared to the slow rhythmic pace at the 200 and 400 ms foreperiods, while no effects were found at the long foreperiods, probably due to a foreperiod effect. In Experiment 2, non-predictive rhythmic paces did not modulate the foreperiod effect. The addition of temporal uncertainty by including catch trials in Experiment 3 clearly unveiled the effect of non-predictive rhythmic pace at short and long foreperiods. Taken together, the results of the experiments reported here highlight the ability of rhythms to orient temporal attention enhancing participants' response speed not only at short intervals but also at long time intervals, suggesting the involvement of a flexible mechanism.

The aim of this study was to explore, for the first time in patients, the neural bases of temporal orienting of attention as well as the interrelations with two other effects of temporal preparation: the foreperiod effect and sequential effects. We administered an experimental task to a group of 14 patients with prefrontal lesion, a group of 15 control subjects and a group of 7 patients with a basal ganglia lesion. In the task, a cue was presented (a short versus long line) to inform participants about the time of appearance (early versus late) of a target stimulus, and the duration of the cue-target time intervals (400 versus 1400 ms) was manipulated. In contrast to the control group, patients with right prefrontal lesion showed a clear deficit in the temporal orienting effect. The foreperiod effect was also affected in the group of patients with prefrontal lesion (without lateralization of the deficit), whereas sequential effects were preserved. The group of basal ganglia patients did not show deficits in any of the effects. These findings support the voluntary and strategic nature of the temporal orienting and foreperiod effects, which depend on the prefrontal cortex, as well as the more automatic nature of sequential effects, which do not depend on either prefrontal cortex or frontobasal circuits.