Task relevance modulates the cortical representation of feature conjunctions in the target template

Abstract

Little is known about the cortical regions involved in representing task-related content in preparation for visual task performance. Here we used representational similarity analysis (RSA) to investigate the BOLD response pattern similarity between task relevant and task irrelevant feature dimensions during conjunction viewing and target template maintenance prior to visual search. Subjects were cued to search for a spatial frequency (SF) or orientation of a Gabor grating and we measured BOLD signal during cue and delay periods before the onset of a search display. RSA of delay period activity revealed that widespread regions in frontal, posterior parietal, and occipitotemporal cortices showed general representational differences between task relevant and task irrelevant dimensions (e.g., orientation vs. SF). In contrast, RSA of cue period activity revealed sensory-related representational differences between cue images (regardless of task) at the occipital pole and additionally in the frontal pole. Our data show that task and sensory information are represented differently during viewing and during target template maintenance, and that task relevance modulates the representation of visual information across the cortex.

Combining speed and accuracy to control for speed-accuracy trade-offs(?)

“…One reason for using simple combinations of RTs and PCs instead of decision models might be that authors desire a combined measure that does not rely on a specific psychological theory. This is understandable if the research focus does not lie on decision making (which is the case for most of the studies cited above) or if behavioral data are secondary to the research question (as in many neuroimaging studies employing SAT measures; e.g., Kiss, Driver, & Eimer, 2009;Küper, Gajewski, Frieg, & Falkenstein, 2017;Reeder, Hanke, & Pollmann, 2017). Thus, from a practical standpoint, there is quite some demand for combined speed-accuracy measures.…”

Functional biases in attentional templates from associative memory

“…There are at least two reasons why templates retrieved from long-term memory may not be as adaptable as those explicitly presented. First, unlike functional biases of templates that are explicitly presented, templates retrieved from memory cannot benefit from differences at the encoding stage (Reeder, Hanke, & Pollmann, 2017;Serences, Ester, Vogel, & Awh, 2009). Second, unlike forms of adaptation that may gradually develop when repeatedly using the same template for many trials in a row (as in, e.g., Navalpakkam & Itti, 2007;Yu & Geng, 2019), the same associative memory template may require distinct adaptations at each instance of retrieval depending on the current context.…”

Differential brain mechanisms for processing distracting information in task‐relevant and ‐irrelevant dimensions in visual search

“…Competition among multiple stimuli is known to be resolved by attentional selection mechanisms that enhance the representation and processing efficiency of attended information (e.g., Moran & Desimone, ; Nakayama & Martini, ; Serences et al, ), and suppress the processing of unwanted information (e.g., Beck & Kastner, ; Friedman‐Hill, Robertson, Ungerleider, & Desimone, ; Reeder, Olivers, & Pollmann, ; Shulman et al, ; Shulman, Astafiev, McAvoy, d'Avossa, & Corbetta, ; Vossel, Weidner, Moos, & Fink, ). A network of frontoparietal areas, including posterior parietal cortex (PPC), intraparietal sulcus (IPS), frontal eye field (FEF), and supplementary motor area (SMA)/supplementary eye field (SEF), are thought to be important in biasing processing toward the top‐down defined information and away from potentially distracting information in the visual field (Fairhall, Indovina, Driver, & Macaluso, ; Maximo, Neupane, Saxena, Joseph, & Kana, ; Reeder, Hanke, & Pollmann, ; Shafritz, Gore, & Marois, ; Yantis et al, ).…”

“…A network of frontoparietal areas, including posterior parietal cortex (PPC), intraparietal sulcus (IPS), frontal eye field (FEF), and supplementary motor area (SMA)/supplementary eye field (SEF), are thought to be important in biasing processing toward the top-down defined information and away from potentially distracting information in the visual field (Fairhall, Indovina, Driver, & Macaluso, 2009;Maximo, Neupane, Saxena, Joseph, & Kana, 2016;Reeder, Hanke, & Pollmann, 2017;Shafritz, Gore, & Marois, 2002;Yantis et al, 2002). A network of frontoparietal areas, including posterior parietal cortex (PPC), intraparietal sulcus (IPS), frontal eye field (FEF), and supplementary motor area (SMA)/supplementary eye field (SEF), are thought to be important in biasing processing toward the top-down defined information and away from potentially distracting information in the visual field (Fairhall, Indovina, Driver, & Macaluso, 2009;Maximo, Neupane, Saxena, Joseph, & Kana, 2016;Reeder, Hanke, & Pollmann, 2017;Shafritz, Gore, & Marois, 2002;Yantis et al, 2002).…”

“…2016). A network of frontoparietal areas, including posterior parietal cortex (PPC), intraparietal sulcus (IPS), frontal eye field (FEF), and supplementary motor area (SMA)/supplementary eye field (SEF), are thought to be important in biasing processing toward the top-down defined information and away from potentially distracting information in the visual field (Fairhall, Indovina, Driver, & Macaluso, 2009;Maximo, Neupane, Saxena, Joseph, & Kana, 2016;Reeder, Hanke, & Pollmann, 2017;Shafritz, Gore, & Marois, 2002;Yantis et al, 2002).…”