The effect of feature-based attention on flanker interference processing: An fMRI-constrained source analysis

Abstract

The present study examined whether feature-based cueing affects early or late stages of flanker conflict processing using EEG and fMRI. Feature cues either directed participants’ attention to the upcoming colour of the target or were neutral. Validity-specific modulations during interference processing were investigated using the N200 event-related potential (ERP) component and BOLD signal differences. Additionally, both data sets were integrated using an fMRI-constrained source analysis. Finally, the results were compared with a previous study in which spatial instead of feature-based cueing was applied to an otherwise identical flanker task. Feature-based and spatial attention recruited a common fronto-parietal network during conflict processing. Irrespective of attention type (feature-based; spatial), this network responded to focussed attention (valid cueing) as well as context updating (invalid cueing), hinting at domain-general mechanisms. However, spatially and non-spatially directed attention also demonstrated domain-specific activation patterns for conflict processing that were observable in distinct EEG and fMRI data patterns as well as in the respective source analyses. Conflict-specific activity in visual brain regions was comparable between both attention types. We assume that the distinction between spatially and non-spatially directed attention types primarily applies to temporal differences (domain-specific dynamics) between signals originating in the same brain regions (domain-general localization).

Assessing bilingual language switching behavior with Ecological Momentary Assessment

“…Hence, in these tasks we also analyzed the Gratton effect, which states that congruency effects may be larger after congruent trials than after incongruent trials. Hypothetically, this is because conflict monitoring has been activated during incongruent trials, diminishing possible congruency effects during the following trial (see also Kerns, 2006; Siemann, Herrmann & Galashan, 2018 with regard to serial congruency effects in the Simon and Flanker tasks, respectively).…”

“…In the Simon and Flanker tasks, we also examined how congruency of the previous trial affects the congruency effect on the next trial. Earlier studies have found that for both tasks, the congruency effect is lower after incongruent trials than after congruent trials (Botvinick et al, 2001;Kerns, 2006;Siemann et al, 2018). This is called the Gratton effect and is assumed to reflect conflict monitoring.…”

Involuntary Orienting and Conflict Resolution during Auditory Attention: The Role of Ventral and Dorsal Streams

“…After meta-analyses of the dual-pathway theory of auditory tasks (Alho et al, 2014;Arnott et al, 2004), additional inferior parietal lobe activity is predicted for spatial stimuli; and middle STG activity, for nonspatial stimuli. Conflict resolution contrasts are predicted to show frontoparietal activation including ACC, IFG, and parietal lobe, as found by Roberts and Hall (2008) and Siemann et al (2018). However, it is unclear whether larger supramodal or auditory-specific networks will be engaged for the spatial (e.g., frontal cortex) and nonspatial (e.g., amodal: MTG; supramodal: cuneus and lingual gyrus) auditory stimuli.…”

“…However, the pathways activated by auditory spatial and nonspatial conflict resolution tasks have not been investigated. Siemann, Herrmann, and Galashan (2018) investigated this question with visual stimuli and found comparable networks were activated for visual spatial and nonspatial conflict resolution (dorsal frontoparietal networks in the left MFG, superior parietal lobule, and FEFs), with additional ventral areas recruited specifically for nonspatial conflict resolution (left MTG, cuneus, and lingual gyrus).…”

Involuntary orienting and conflict resolution during auditory attention: The role of ventral and dorsal streams

“…With the exception of 435 musicians with absolute pitch, the majority of listeners process pure tones on a continuous scale; 436 the typical listener is unable to categorize a frequency of 261.6 Hz as middle C, and would 437 instead label the tone with an abstract label. This has been shown using another version of an 438 auditory Stroop task where conflict resolution was assessed by congruent and incongruent trials 439 of the stimuli's tone and sung tone name (Schulze, Mueller, & Koelsch, 2013). Unlike musicians 440 without absolute pitch, those with absolute pitch showed activation in the left superior temporal 441 gyrus/sulcus.…”