Event-related potential correlates of transient attention shifts to color and location

Eimer, Martin

doi:10.1016/0301-0511(95)05139-2

Cited by 50 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, event-related potential (ERP) studies have shown early sensory-specific ERP components (P1 and N1) elicited over posterior visual cortical areas in response to visual stimuli at attended compared to unattended locations (e.g., Eimer, 1995;Hillyard & Münte, 1984;Mangun, 1995). Amplitude modulations in response to spatial cues start as early as 80 ms after stimulus onset.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of spatial and nonspatial information in visual selection

Theeuwes¹,

Burg²

2006

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even though it is undisputed that prior information regarding the location of a target affects visual selection, the issue of whether information regarding nonspatial features, such as color and shape, has similar effects has been a matter of debate since the early 1980s. In the study described in this article, measures derived from signal detection theory were used to show that perceptual sensitivity is affected by a top-down set for spatial information but not by a top-down set for nonspatial information. This indicates that knowing where the target singleton is affects perceptual selectivity but that knowing what it is does not help selectivity. Furthermore, perceptual sensitivity can be enhanced by nonspatial features, but only through a process related to bottom-up priming. These findings have important implications for models of visual selection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of spatial and nonspatial information in visual selection

Theeuwes¹,

Burg²

2006

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implementing a change of intentional set was also associated with an increased late (400 -920) positive modulation over frontal and central electrodes, thought to be sensitive to premotor cortical activity (Gerloff, Uenishi, & Hallett, 1998). Intentional processes may, therefore, be associated with quite distinct patterns of modulation to those seen in attentional tasks ( Yamaguchi, Yamagata, & Kobayashi, 2000;Hillyard et al, 1999;Valdes-Sosa, Bobes, Rodriguez, & Pinilla, 1998;Eimer, 1995;Mangun, 1995). While attention has been shown to modulate ERPs related to visual processing, the implementation of an intentional set relies on distinct neural processes that may be associated with the premotor cortex.…”

Section: Task Item Erps-set Implementationmentioning

confidence: 95%

Components of Switching Intentional Set

Rushworth

Passingham

Nobre

2002

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

226

233

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the intuition that we can shift cognitive set on instruction, some behavioral studies have suggested that set shifting might only be accomplished once we engage in performance of the new task. It is possible that set switching consists of more than one component cognitive process and that the component processes might segregated in time. We recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) during two set-switching tasks to test whether different component processes were responsible for (i) set initiation and reconfiguration when presented with the instruction to switch, and (ii) the implementation of the new set once subjects engaged in performing the new task. The response switching (RS) task required shifts of intentional set; subjects selected between responses according to one of two conflicting intentional sets. The results demonstrated the existence of more than one constituent process. Some of the processes were linked to the initiation and reconfiguration of the set prior to actual performance of the new task. Other processes were time locked to performance of new task items. Set initiation started with modulation of medial frontal ERPs and was followed by modulation over parietal electrodes. Implementation of intentional set was associated with modulation of response-related ERPs.

show abstract

“…The N1 component is an often used measure of attention-related sensory processing (e.g., Eimer, 1995;Vogel & Luck, 2000). In particular, there has been considerable interest in effects of selective attention on the N1, and several studies have shown that the amplitude of the visual N1 response is larger for stimuli presented at an attended location relative to the response at unattended locations (Mangun, 1995).…”

Section: Simulations For the N1 Componentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of ERP latency differences: A comparison of single‐participant and jackknife‐based scoring methods

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used computer simulations to evaluate different procedures for measuring changes in the onset latency of a representative range of event-related components (the auditory and visual N1, P3, N2pc, and the frequency-related P3 difference wave). These procedures included several techniques to determine onset latencies combined with approaches using both single-participant average waveforms and jackknife-subsample average waveforms. In general, the jackknife-based approach combined with the relative criterion technique or combined with the fractional area technique (J.C. Hansen & S.A. Hillyard, 1980; S.J. Luck, 2005) provided the most accurate method and the greatest statistical power, with no inflation of Type I error rate.Descriptors: ERP latency, Jackknife, N1, P3, N2pc, Frequency-related P3Research using event-related potentials (ERPs) often focuses on differences in amplitudes as well as differences in latencies of ERP components. However, for both measurements there are several scoring methods, and quite often researchers have to decide rather arbitrarily which method might be most appropriate. In this article we compare several methods for determining ERP latency differences. To evaluate the methods we ran computer simulations based on data of five ERP components: the visual N1, the auditory N1, the P3 (hereafter used to mean the P3b), the N2pc, and the frequency-related P3 component (infrequent minus frequent difference wave).These five components were chosen because they are very different and representative of a broad range of components, as is apparent from the following brief review of these components. The N1 components (visual, auditory) are relatively early components, strongly influenced by physical properties of the stimulus. They are characterized by a clear onset and a sharply increasing amplitude, but clearly reflect different underlying neural generators. In contrast, the P3 is a late component that is relatively insensitive to the physical properties of the stimulus (with the exception of tone intensity; see Covington & Polich, 1996), but is influenced by probabilities, expectations, and resource allocation (see Johnson, 1986). Quite often the P3 does not show a clear onset, and its peak latency is difficult to determine because the component has a wide temporal extension without a sharp peak. The N2pc and frequency-related P3, for their part, are measured from difference waves that are obtained by subtracting ERP waveforms computed at different electrode sites or at same electrode sites but in different experimental conditions. The N2pc is an index of the allocation of visualspatial attention and is isolated by subtracting the ERP at posterior electrode sites ipsilateral to an attended item from the ERP at the corresponding contralateral electrode site, whereas the frequency-related P3 is isolated by subtracting the ERP elicited by frequent targets from the ERP elicited by infrequent targets.For all components, researchers are often interested in estimating the latency differences a...

show abstract

Event-related potential correlates of transient attention shifts to color and location

Cited by 50 publications

References 23 publications

The role of spatial and nonspatial information in visual selection

The role of spatial and nonspatial information in visual selection

Components of Switching Intentional Set

Measurement of ERP latency differences: A comparison of single‐participant and jackknife‐based scoring methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About