Visual attention is guided by top-down mechanisms and pre-stimulus task preparation, but also by selection history (i.e., the bias to prioritize previously attended items). Here we examine how these influences combine. Two groups of participants completed two intermingled tasks. One task involved categorization of a unique target; one group categorized the target based on color, and the other based on shape. The other task involved searching for a target defined by unique shape while ignoring a distractor defined by unique color. Our expectation was that the search task would be difficult for the colorcategorization group because their categorization task required attentional resolution of color, but the search task required that they ignore color. In some experimental blocks, trials from the two tasks appeared predictably, giving the color-categorization group an opportunity to strategically prepare by switching between color-prioritizing and shape-prioritizing attentional templates.We looked to pre-stimulus oscillatory activity as a direct index of this preparation, and to reaction times and post-stimulus ERPs for markers of resultant change in attentional deployment. Results showed that preparation in the color-categorization group optimized attentional templates, such that these participants became less sensitive to the color distractor in the search task. But preparation was not sufficient to entirely negate the influence of selection history, and participants in the color-categorization group continued to show a propensity to attend to the color distractor. These results indicate that preparatory effort can be scaled to the anticipated attentional requirements, but attention is nevertheless considerably biased by selection history.

Auditory and visual information involve different coordinate systems, with auditory spatial cues anchored to the head and visual spatial cues anchored to the eyes. Information about eye movements is therefore critical for reconciling visual and auditory spatial signals. The recent discovery of eye movement-related eardrum oscillations (EMREOs) suggests that this process could begin as early as the auditory periphery. How this reconciliation might happen remains poorly understood. Because humans and monkeys both have mobile eyes and therefore both must perform this shift of reference frames, comparison of the EMREO across species can provide insights to shared and therefore important parameters of the signal. Here we show that rhesus monkeys, like humans, have a consistent, significant EMREO signal that carries parametric information about eye displacement as well as onset times of eye movements. The dependence of the EMREO on the horizontal displacement of the eye is its most consistent feature, and is shared across behavioral tasks, subjects, and species. Differences chiefly involve the waveform frequency, and may relate at least in part to differences in the speed of eye movements across species.

Predictive processing frameworks have demonstrated the central role that prediction plays in a range of cognitive processes including bottom-up and top-down mechanisms of attention control. However, relatively little is understood about how predictive processes interact with the third main determinant of attentional priority -selection history. In this experiment, participants developed a history of either color or shape selection while we observed the impact of these histories in an additional singleton search task using behavioral measures and ERP measures of attentional control. Throughout the experiment, participants were encouraged to predict the upcoming display, but prediction errors were either high or low depending on session. Persistent group differences in our results showed that selection history contributes to the precision weighting of a stimulus, and that this is mediated by overall prediction error. Color-singleton distractors captured attention and required greater suppression when participants had a history of color selection; however, these participants gained large benefits when the upcoming stimuli were highly predictable. We suggest that selection history modulates the precision expectations for a feature in a persistent and implicit way, producing an attentional bias that predictability can help to counteract, but cannot prevent or eliminate entirely.

In joint action, agents are assumed to represent their partner's task to optimize joint performance. However, the neurophysiological processes underlying the processing of the partner's task have not been widely investigated. Pairs of participants were asked to perform a joint version of a visual search task in either a cooperative or a competitive social context. During the task, one agent's neural activity was recorded using electroencephalography (EEG). The alpha-lateralization index was calculated as [(contralateral À ipsilateral)/ (contralateral + ipsilateral)] Â 100 to examine attentional selection or suppression of the laterally presented stimulus. A negative alpha-lateralization indicates lower alpha-band power over the contralateral sites compared with the ipsilateral sites and was related to attentional selection. A positive alphalateralization indicates higher alpha-band power over the contralateral sites compared with the ipsilateral sites and was related to attentional suppression.Behavioural results showed impeded search performance when the partner target was present. Furthermore, EEG time-frequency results showed that the partner target induced a negative parieto-occipital alpha-lateralization, indicating that it captured attention, when the agent target was absent. When the agent target was present, the parieto-occipital alpha-lateralization index was negative for laterally presented partner target in the cooperative and positive in the competitive social context, indicative of attentional capture in the cooperative condition and suppression of the partner target in the competitive condition. In sum, our study showed that humans tune their attentional processing towards a partner target in a joint action task. This attentional tuning was shown to be affected by social context and the presence of the agent's own target.

No abstract