Visual Feature Integration with an Attention Deficit

Arguin, Martin; Cavanagh, Patrick; Joanette, Yves

doi:10.1006/brcg.1994.1003

Cited by 41 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The rate of illusory conjunctions was 13%, even in the absence of any competing, attention-demanding task, and even when display duration was as long as 10 s (see also Robertson, Treisman, Friedman-Hill & Grabowecky, 1997, for a more systematic description of this patient's cognitive de®cits). Similarly, Arguin and his colleagues (Arguin et al, 1994) reported a particularly high percentage of illusory conjunctions ($25%) in the right hemi®eld of a group of eight left-hemisphere damaged patients. These same patients had previously been shown to have a severe de®cit in attending to contralesional stimulation.…”

Section: Findings From Brain-damaged Patientsmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…First, patients with an attention de®cit resulting from brain lesions including the posterior parietal cortex produce an abnormally high percentage of illusory conjunctions (Arguin et al, 1994;Friedman-Hill et al, 1995). Second, especially one study (Arguin et al, 1993) demonstrates a clear dissociation between feature and conjunction search, only the latter being severely disrupted following posterior parietal lesions accompanied by an attentional disorder.…”

Section: Summary and General Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dicult to accommodate within the framework of the competitive model is also the increased probability of illusory conjunctions in patients with unilateral (Arguin et al, 1994) or bilateral (Arguin et al, 1994;Friedman-Hill et al, 1995) brain damage, including the parietal lobe, and leading to attention and visuospatial de®cits. The diculty stems from the fact that, according to the model, the proper conjoining of elemental features occurs preattentively.…”

Section: Summary and General Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Serial attention mechanisms in visual search: A critical look at the evidence

Chelazzi

1999

Psychological Research

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Until a few years ago, visual search tasks were of exclusive pertinence to psychophysicists and cognitive psychologists trying to understand the operating principles and computational constraints of visual perception and visual selective attention. In recent years, cognitive neuroscience, with its powerful tools, has started to explore more directly the neuronal mechanisms underlying search performance in humans and macaques, aiming at the same general goals. New observations from a number of cognitive neuroscience approaches are promising a near future of great excitement in this field of research. This article offers a critical review of some of these recent contributions and highlights some of the interpretational problems that they pose.

show abstract

Section: Findings From Brain-damaged Patientsmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Summary and General Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Summary and General Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Serial attention mechanisms in visual search: A critical look at the evidence

Chelazzi

1999

Psychological Research

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In conjunction search, the target is defined by a combination of features, such as color and form, whereas in feature search the target differs from the distractor items along only one dimension. Although functional imaging has revealed rPPC to be active during both types of visual search (Nobre, Coull, Walsh, & Frith, 2003), it appears from neuropsychological evidence that rPPC is only necessary for tasks involving conjunctions ( Wojciulik & Kanwisher, 1998;Friedman-Hill, Robertson, & Treisman, 1995;Arguin, Cavanagh, & Joanette, 1994). In further support of this, research using the type of visual search detection paradigm described and TMS (a neurodisruptive lesion replacement technique) has shown that rPPC is critically involved in conjunction search but that the same brain region is not necessary for comparable feature tasks (Muggleton, Cowey, & Walsh, 2008;Ellison, Rushworth, & Walsh, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Involvement of Posterior Parietal Cortex in Feature and Conjunction Visuomotor Search

Lane

Smith²,

Schenk³

et al. 2011

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. (rPPC) is necessary for the completion of conjunction but not feature visual search, regardless of the attentional requirements. One account for this dissociation is that the rPPC is primarily involved in processing spatial information. For target identification, conjunction tasks require that spatial information is used to determine if features occur at the same location, whereas feature search does not require such a process. This account suggests that if the requirement to localize the target is made explicit, then rPPC may also be necessary for feature search. This was examined using TMS and by manipulating the response mode: Participants were either required to press a button indicating the presence/absence of the target or else had to point to the target. TMS over rPPC did not disrupt performance of the feature task when a button press was required but significantly increased response time and movement time for the same task in the pointing condition. Conjunction search in both response conditions was significantly impaired by TMS. Performance on a task that required pointing to a target in the absence of distractors and thus did not involve visual search was unaffected by rPPC stimulation. We conclude that rPPC is involved in coding and representing spatial information and is therefore crucial when the task requires determining whether two features spatially co-occur or when search is combined with explicit target localization via a visuomotor transformation. ■

show abstract

“…Performance is normal in both visual fields when one stimulus at a time is presented. One paradigm that is typically used to study attentional mechanisms both with normal subjects and with parietal patients is visual search (Arguin, Joanette, & Cavanagh, 1993;Esterman, McGlinchey-Berroth, & Milber, 2000) where observers are asked to detect or discriminate a target item among distractors. Right parietal patients' performance is generally normal when they are asked to perform a simple search task (say, finding a red target among green distractors), while they are impaired in more difficult searches when attentional resources must be allocated to each display item in turn (Laeng, Brennen, & Espeseth, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%