2008
DOI: 10.4067/s0716-97602008000400012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A neutral cue facilitates detection of a visual target by modulating attention

Abstract: Twelve rats were trained to perform a two-choice visual detection task in which a right or left light was presented and the animals were required to press the lever located under the illuminated light for a food reward. In seventy percent of the trials the target light was preceded by presentation of a neutral cue (a central light). Relevance of the neutral cue for detection of the target was analyzed by comparing behavioral indices of attention in its presence and absence. Accuracy was significantly higher in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The stimulus events in our experiments were intentionally not informative about target location to prevent the recruitment of endogenous effects, so mice had no incentive to associate the stimulus event with the target location. Consequently, the lack of spatial specificity in our stimulus-driven changes of attention is consistent with control settings that processed the stimulus event as an alerting signal ( Posner, 1980 ), similar to that seen in primates and rodents ( Fecteau & Munoz, 2007 ; Hamame, Delano, & Robles, 2008 ; Witte, Villareal, & Marrocco, 1996 ). A related possibility is that the mice might have used the occurrence of the stimulus event to reduce the uncertainty about the timing of the orientation change, even though the stimulus event was uninformative about where the orientation change would occur.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…The stimulus events in our experiments were intentionally not informative about target location to prevent the recruitment of endogenous effects, so mice had no incentive to associate the stimulus event with the target location. Consequently, the lack of spatial specificity in our stimulus-driven changes of attention is consistent with control settings that processed the stimulus event as an alerting signal ( Posner, 1980 ), similar to that seen in primates and rodents ( Fecteau & Munoz, 2007 ; Hamame, Delano, & Robles, 2008 ; Witte, Villareal, & Marrocco, 1996 ). A related possibility is that the mice might have used the occurrence of the stimulus event to reduce the uncertainty about the timing of the orientation change, even though the stimulus event was uninformative about where the orientation change would occur.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Two experimenters blinded to the MOC reflex strength of each animal performed the behavioural procedures. All animals were trained during ~ 3 to 4 months, five days a week, in a two-choice visual discrimination task previously used by us in rats 31,45 www.nature.com/scientificreports/ mice 18,46 . The behavioural task was performed in an operant mesh cage identical to the one used in Delano et al 9 , located inside a double-walled sound-attenuating room.…”
Section: Measurement Of Dpoaes Suppression By Contralateral Noise In mentioning
confidence: 99%