Abstract:. (2007) 'Time course of the involvement of the ventral and dorsal visual processing streams in a visuospatial task. ', Neuropsychologia., 45 (14). pp. 3335-3339. Further information on publisher's website:https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.06.014 Publisher's copyright statement:Additional information:
Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or … Show more
“…Konen and Kleiser [2004] also pointed out that target predictability and unpredictability can effectively modulate rPPC activation, which led them to hypothesize that rPPC is critically involved in the switching of spatial attention [Heilman and Van Den Abell, 1980;Mesulam, 1981]. Recently, a TMS study by Hodsoll and colleagues [2009] tested rPPC's role in attentional capture tasks [Ellison et al, 2003;Ellison and Cowey, 2007] and found that disrupted rPPC activity lessened the magnitude of attentional capture.…”
Section: The Posterior Parietal Cortexmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Participants received 3 pulses of stimulation given at 50 Hz repeated starting every 200 ms for 20 s at 40% of maximum output (40% of the maximum output of 2 Tesla) [Huang et al, 2005], which was well below each individual participants' motor threshold (the lowest of which was 53%). A fixed stimulation level was used because it has proven successful and replicable in many studies and over a wide range of tasks [e.g., Ashbridge et al, 1997;Chen et al, 2009;Ellison and Cowey, 2007;Hung et al, 2005;Kalla et al, 2008;Muggleton et al, 2003;Muggleton et al, 2010a,b;Rushworth et al, 2002] and because motor cortex excitability does not provide a good guide to TMS thresholds in other cortical areas [Stewart et al, 2001]. …”
Predictability in the visual environment provides a powerful cue for efficient processing of scenes and objects. Recently, studies have suggested that the directionality and magnitude of saccade curvature can be informative as to how the visual system processes predictive information. The present study investigated the role of the right posterior parietal cortex (rPPC) in shaping saccade curvatures in the context of predictive and non-predictive visual cues. We used an orienting paradigm that incorporated manipulation of target location predictability and delivered transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over rPPC. Participants were presented with either an informative or uninformative cue to upcoming target locations. Our results showed that rPPC TMS generally increased saccade latency and saccade error rates. Intriguingly, rPPC TMS increased curvatures away from the distractor only when the target location was unpredictable and decreased saccadic errors towards the distractor. These effects on curvature and accuracy were not present when the target location was predictable. These results dissociate the strong contingency between saccade latency and saccade curvature and also indicate that rPPC plays an important role in allocating and suppressing attention to distractors when the target demands visual disambiguation. Furthermore, the present study suggests that, like the frontal eye fields, rPPC is critically involved in determining saccade curvature and the generation of saccadic behaviors under conditions of differing target predictability.
“…Konen and Kleiser [2004] also pointed out that target predictability and unpredictability can effectively modulate rPPC activation, which led them to hypothesize that rPPC is critically involved in the switching of spatial attention [Heilman and Van Den Abell, 1980;Mesulam, 1981]. Recently, a TMS study by Hodsoll and colleagues [2009] tested rPPC's role in attentional capture tasks [Ellison et al, 2003;Ellison and Cowey, 2007] and found that disrupted rPPC activity lessened the magnitude of attentional capture.…”
Section: The Posterior Parietal Cortexmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Participants received 3 pulses of stimulation given at 50 Hz repeated starting every 200 ms for 20 s at 40% of maximum output (40% of the maximum output of 2 Tesla) [Huang et al, 2005], which was well below each individual participants' motor threshold (the lowest of which was 53%). A fixed stimulation level was used because it has proven successful and replicable in many studies and over a wide range of tasks [e.g., Ashbridge et al, 1997;Chen et al, 2009;Ellison and Cowey, 2007;Hung et al, 2005;Kalla et al, 2008;Muggleton et al, 2003;Muggleton et al, 2010a,b;Rushworth et al, 2002] and because motor cortex excitability does not provide a good guide to TMS thresholds in other cortical areas [Stewart et al, 2001]. …”
Predictability in the visual environment provides a powerful cue for efficient processing of scenes and objects. Recently, studies have suggested that the directionality and magnitude of saccade curvature can be informative as to how the visual system processes predictive information. The present study investigated the role of the right posterior parietal cortex (rPPC) in shaping saccade curvatures in the context of predictive and non-predictive visual cues. We used an orienting paradigm that incorporated manipulation of target location predictability and delivered transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over rPPC. Participants were presented with either an informative or uninformative cue to upcoming target locations. Our results showed that rPPC TMS generally increased saccade latency and saccade error rates. Intriguingly, rPPC TMS increased curvatures away from the distractor only when the target location was unpredictable and decreased saccadic errors towards the distractor. These effects on curvature and accuracy were not present when the target location was predictable. These results dissociate the strong contingency between saccade latency and saccade curvature and also indicate that rPPC plays an important role in allocating and suppressing attention to distractors when the target demands visual disambiguation. Furthermore, the present study suggests that, like the frontal eye fields, rPPC is critically involved in determining saccade curvature and the generation of saccadic behaviors under conditions of differing target predictability.
“…Here we test these alternatives by using online triple-pulse rTMS over the PPC either immediately before the onset of a global/local letter or following its offset while subjects are asked to identify either the global or the local aspects. A variety of TMS studies have now demonstrated that on-line processing of stimuli can be disrupted by TMS presented after a target has appeared (e.g., Ellison & Cowey, 2007;Ashbridge, Walsh, & Cowey, 1997). In Experiment 1, stimulation was given over the right PPC.…”
Abstract& Attentional cues can trigger activity in the parietal cortex in anticipation of visual displays, and this activity may, in turn, induce changes in other areas of the visual cortex, hence, implementing attentional selection. In a recent TMS study [Mevorach, C., Humphreys, G. W., & Shalev, L. Opposite biases in saliencebased selection for the left and right posterior parietal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 740-742, 2006b], it was shown that the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) can utilize the relative saliency (a nonspatial property) of a target and a distractor to bias visual selection. Furthermore, selection was lateralized so that the right PPC is engaged when salient information must be selected and the left PPC when the salient information must be ignored. However, it is not clear how the PPC implements these complementary forms of selection. Here we used on-line triplepulse TMS over the right or left PPC prior to or after the onset of global/local displays. When delivered after the onset of the display, TMS to the right PPC disrupted the selection of the more salient aspect of the hierarchical letter. In contrast, left PPC TMS delivered prior to the onset of the stimulus disrupted responses to the lower saliency stimulus. These findings suggest that selection and suppression of saliency, rather than being ''two sides of the same coin,'' are fundamentally different processes. Selection of saliency seems to operate reflexively, whereas suppression of saliency relies on a preparatory phase that ''sets up'' the system in order to effectively ignore saliency. &
“…Although it would seem that each area can process this task according to its functional specialisation, it may be that both areas must ideally be active in order to process this task quickly and efficiently. There is already tentative evidence for such a co-operative account from a timing study that found LO had a greater and earlier peak of disruption than PPC in this task (Ellison & Cowey, 2007).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…But if consecutive peaks of TMS interference are seen, it is more likely that LO and PPC work in sequence in order to accomplish the task. Ellison and Cowey (2007) investigated this formulation by using double pulse TMS to provide a brief disruption window of 100ms. Results showed that TMS over LO has an earlier and significantly greater peak of activation than that over PPC, indicating that the ventral stream has a greater earlier involvement in the processing of this visuospatial task and consistent with our previous conclusion that its involvement is based on the shape processing for which the ventral stream is specialised (Kourzi & Kanwisher, 2001;Malach et al, 1995).…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.