Push-Pull Mechanism of Selective Attention in Human Extrastriate Cortex

Pinsk, Mark A.; Doniger, Glen M.; Kästner, Sabine

doi:10.1152/jn.00974.2003

Cited by 150 publications

(170 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

149

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In sum, the present findings add to mounting evidence emphasizing that attentional focusing involves the simultaneous operation of neural enhancement and neural suppression (11,12,14,15,30). These findings also indicate that enhancement and suppression may cooperate in a spatially structured manner that optimizes noise reduction during visual object recognition, as predicted by ST. That is, the center-surround profile represents an activity distribution that is optimal to locally demarcate the target from non-target information, specifically attenuating inputs from nearby distractor items that would be at the largest risk to confuse target discrimination processes.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Evidence has accumulated that attention operates by means of both neural enhancement (4-7) and neural suppression (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13). More recent data from functional MRI in humans indicate that enhancement and suppression may cooperate across the visual scene (14,15), leading to an increase in selectivity in a push-pull-like manner (15). That is, a spatially organized combination of enhancement and suppression may effectively sharpen the demarcation of relevant from irrelevant inputs, particularly in cluttered visual scenes in which neural representations of relevant and irrelevant information may become mixed together (16,17) .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Direct neurophysiological evidence for spatial suppression surrounding the focus of attention in vision

Hopf

Boehler

Luck

et al. 2006

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

225

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spatial focus of attention has traditionally been envisioned as a simple spatial gradient of enhanced activity that falls off monotonically with increasing distance. Here, we show with highdensity magnetoencephalographic recordings in human observers that the focus of attention is not a simple monotonic gradient but instead contains an excitatory peak surrounded by a narrow inhibitory region. To demonstrate this center-surround profile, we asked subjects to focus attention onto a color pop-out target and then presented probe stimuli at various distances from the target. We observed that the electromagnetic response to the probe was enhanced when the probe was presented at the location of the target, but the probe response was suppressed in a narrow zone surrounding the target and then recovered at more distant locations. Withdrawing attention from the pop-out target by engaging observers in a demanding foveal task eliminated this pattern, confirming a truly attention-driven effect. These results indicate that neural enhancement and suppression coexist in a spatially structured manner that is optimal to attenuate the most deleterious noise during visual object identification.attention ͉ magnetoencephalography ͉ visual I t is a common experience that one is able to focus on relevant parts of a visual scene even when irrelevant parts of the scene are more salient. It has been suggested that this voluntary focusing is mediated by a biasing of competitive stimulus interactions in the visual cortex, which promotes preferential processing of relevant over irrelevant input (1-3). This competitive advantage can be achieved by enhancing the processing of relevant inputs or by attenuating the processing of irrelevant inputs. Evidence has accumulated that attention operates by means of both neural enhancement (4-7) and neural suppression (8-13). More recent data from functional MRI in humans indicate that enhancement and suppression may cooperate across the visual scene (14, 15), leading to an increase in selectivity in a push-pull-like manner (15). That is, a spatially organized combination of enhancement and suppression may effectively sharpen the demarcation of relevant from irrelevant inputs, particularly in cluttered visual scenes in which neural representations of relevant and irrelevant information may become mixed together (16, 17) .Many behavioral and electrophysiological studies of attention have indicated that attending to a location produces a monotonic gradient of processing efficiency around the attended location (18)(19)(20)(21)(22). In contrast, computational models motivated by the known anatomy and physiology of the primate visual system have predicted that the spatial distribution of cortical activity around the focus of attention may be more complex than a simple gradient. In particular, the selective tuning model (ST) of Tsotsos et al. (23,24) proposes an architecture of attentional selection that explicitly predicts a suppressive zone surrounding the focus of attention. In short, ST provides an acc...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct neurophysiological evidence for spatial suppression surrounding the focus of attention in vision

Hopf

Boehler

Luck

et al. 2006

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

225

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In line with perceptual load theory (Lavie, 1995), we expected that increases in visual perceptual load would give rise to reduced SSEP responses to the unattended visual checkerboard, as fewer residual perceptual resources would be available to process them. We also expected that increasing visual perceptual load would enhance SSEP responses evoked by the attended stimulus stream, in line with evidence that increasing the perceptual load imposed by an attended stimulus enhances neural responses to that stimulus (Parks et al, 2011;Pinsk et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 57%

“…Further evidence Crossmodal perceptual load 4 comes from studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure the magnitude of blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) responses to unattended visual stimuli under varying levels of visual perceptual load. These studies have demonstrated that increasing perceptual load reduces BOLD responses to unattended visual stimuli across a range of brain areas along the visual processing pathway, including the lateral geniculate nucleus (O'Connor et al, 2002), areas V1, V2, V3, and V4 (Schwartz et al, 2005), area TEO (Pinsk et al, 2004), and area V5 (Rees et al, 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A crossmodal crossover: Opposite effects of visual and auditory perceptual load on steady-state evoked potentials to irrelevant visual stimuli

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mechanisms of attention are required to prioritise goal-relevant sensory events under conditions of stimulus competition. According to the perceptual load model of attention, the extent to which task-irrelevant inputs are processed is determined by the relative demands of discriminating the target: the more perceptually demanding the target task, the less unattended stimuli will be processed. Although much evidence supports the perceptual load model for competing stimuli within a single sensory modality, the effects of perceptual load in one modality on distractor processing in another is less clear. Here we used steady-state evoked potentials (SSEPs) to measure neural responses to irrelevant visual checkerboard stimuli while participants performed either a visual or auditory task that varied in perceptual load. Consistent with perceptual load theory, increasing visual task load suppressed SSEPs to the ignored visual checkerboards. In contrast, increasing auditory task load enhanced SSEPs to the ignored visual checkerboards. This enhanced neural response to irrelevant visual stimuli under auditory load suggests that exhausting capacity within one modality selectively compromises inhibitory processes required for filtering stimuli in another. KeywordsDistractor interference, frequency tagging, neural oscillations, perceptual load, selective attention Crossmodal perceptual load 3

show abstract

“…In contrast, increased attentional engagement in the central task would consume more attentional resources and thus limit the processing of the irrelevant distractors. While our attentional load manipulation powerfully modulated this "push-pull" mechanism of selective attention in the controls (Pinsk et al, 2004), MDD patients did not show any load-related increased coupling of activity between parietal or frontal regions and visual cortices. This result might again reflect that the low-load condition was potentially quite demanding for the patients, which would be consistent with a reduction of V4 activity even during the low-load condition.…”

Section: Disrupted Functional Connectivity In Depressionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Abnormal Neural Filtering of Irrelevant Visual Information in Depression

Desseilles¹,

Balteau²,

Sterpenich³

et al. 2009

J. Neurosci.

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pathophysiology of major depressive disorder (MDD) includes both affective and cognitive dysfunctions. We aimed to clarify how regions regulating affective processing interact with those involved in attention, and how such interaction impacts perceptual processing within sensory cortices. Based on previous work showing that top-down influences from attention can determine the processing of external inputs within early sensory cortices, we tested with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) whether MDD alters attentional ("top-down") effects on the neural filtering of irrelevant, nonemotional visual stimuli. The present fMRI study was conducted in 14 nonmedicated patients with a first episode of unipolar MDD and 14 matched controls. During scanning, subjects performed two tasks imposing two different levels of attentional load at fixation (easy or difficult), while irrelevant colored stimuli were presented in the periphery. Analyses of fMRI data revealed that MDD patients show (1) an abnormal filtering of irrelevant information in visual cortex, (2) an altered functional connectivity between frontoparietal networks and visual cortices, and (3) a hyperactivity in subgenual cingulate/ medial orbitofrontal cortex that was modulated by attentional load. These results demonstrate that biological abnormalities contribute to the cognitive deficits seen in major depression, and clarify how neural networks implicated in mood regulation influence executive control and perceptual processes. These findings not only improve our understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying cognitive dysfunctions in MDD, but also shed new light on the interaction between cognition and mood regulation.

show abstract

Push-Pull Mechanism of Selective Attention in Human Extrastriate Cortex

Cited by 150 publications

References 45 publications

Direct neurophysiological evidence for spatial suppression surrounding the focus of attention in vision

Direct neurophysiological evidence for spatial suppression surrounding the focus of attention in vision

A crossmodal crossover: Opposite effects of visual and auditory perceptual load on steady-state evoked potentials to irrelevant visual stimuli

Abnormal Neural Filtering of Irrelevant Visual Information in Depression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About