Modulations among the alerting, orienting and executive control networks

Abstract

This paper reports a series of experiments that were carried out in order to study the attentional system. Three networks make up this system, and each of them specializes in particular processes. The executive control network specializes in control processes, such as conflict resolution or detection of errors; the orienting network directs the processing system to the source of input and enhances its processing; the alerting network prepares the system for a fast response by maintaining an adequate level of activation in the cognitive system. Recently, Fan and collaborators [J Cogn Neurosci 14(3):340-347, 2002] designed a task to measure the efficiency of each network. We modified Fan's task to test the influences among the networks. We found that the executive control network is inhibited by the alerting network, whereas the orienting network raises the efficiency of the executive control network (Experiment 1). We also found that the alerting network influences the orienting network by speeding up its time course function (Experiment 2). Results were replicated in a third experiment, proving the effects to be stable over time, participants and experimental context, and to be potentially important as a tool for neuropsychological assessment.

Mixing measures: testing an assumption of the attention network test

“…This is consistent with recent research showing that the three attentional subsystems are able to work together to influence behavior. Research has shown that the alerting network inhibits executive control, whereas the orienting network enhances executive control (Callejas, Lupiáñez, Funes, et al, 2005;Callejas, Lupiáñez, & Tudela, 2004;Fan, Gu, et al, 2009) and the alerting network modulates orienting effects (Fuentes & Campoy, 2008). Furthermore, there is substantial functional overlap across the different neural networks (Fan et al, 2005).…”

“…They did, however, report a significant interaction between cue condition and flanker type, which implies that attention networks are not entirely independent (Fan, McCandliss, Sommer, et al, 2002). In order to investigate potential interactions across attention networks, Callejas and colleagues (Callejas, Lupiáñez, Funes, & Tudela, 2005;Callejas, Lupiáñez, & Tudela, 2004) modified Fan's task by including a new alerting stimulus: a short-duration high-frequency tone. This modification enabled the researchers to measure each network independently and to quantify the effect of one network on the other two networks.…”

“…This modification enabled the researchers to measure each network independently and to quantify the effect of one network on the other two networks. In a series of experiments, Callejas et al reported (a) a larger flanker-congruency effect after an alerting stimulus, suggesting that the executive control network is inhibited by the alerting network, (b) a smaller congruency effect on cued versus uncued trials, demonstrating that the orienting network enhances the efficiency of executive control, and (c) a larger cuing effect following an alerting signal, suggesting that the alerting network speeds up the efficiency of the orienting network (Callejas, Lupiáñez, Funes, et al, 2005;Callejas, Lupiáñez, & Tudela, 2004). These findings have since been replicated using other versions of the ANT (ANT-R; Fan, Gu, et al, 2009).…”

“…Because previous research has clearly demonstrated that the networks interact (cf. Callejas, Lupiáñez, Funes, et al, 2005;Callejas, Lupiáñez, & Tudela, 2004;Fan, Gu, et al, 2009) thought it was important to determine whether there were any interactions across the individual cue and flanker conditions within each network. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to assess the appropriateness of averaging across cue and flanker conditions to obtain separate measures of the three attention networks.…”

“…However, given that Callejas, Lupiáñez, Funes, et al (2004), Callejas, Lupiáñez, and Tudela (2005), and Fan, Gu, et al (2009) have found that different levels of alerting and orienting can inhibit or enhance executive control, respectively, it is reasonable for one to assume that the magnitude of flanker-congruency effects may vary depending on the identity of the preceding cue. In this case, we may find significant differences in the mean values of the different Cue X Flanker combinations and low correlations between the intranetwork composites.…”