No abstract

40Attention is a critical cognitive function, allowing humans to select, enhance, and sustain 41 focus on information of behavioral relevance. Attention contains dissociable neural and 42 psychological components. Nevertheless, some brain networks support multiple attentional 43 functions. Connectome-based Predictive Models (CPM), which associate individual differences 44 in task performance with functional connectivity patterns, provide a compelling example. A 45 sustained attention network model (saCPM) successfully predicted performance for selective 46 attention, inhibitory control, and reading recall tasks. Here we constructed a visual attentional 47 blink (VAB) model (vabCPM), comparing its performance predictions and network edges 48 associated with successful and unsuccessful behavior to the saCPM's. In the VAB, attention 49 devoted to a target often causes a subsequent item to be missed. Although frequently attributed to 50 attentional limitations, VAB deficits may attenuate when participants are distracted or deploy 51 attention diffusely. Participants (n=73; 24 males) underwent fMRI while performing the VAB 52 task and while resting. Outside the scanner, they completed other cognitive tasks over several 53 days. A vabCPM constructed from these data successfully predicted VAB performance. 54 Strikingly, the network edges that predicted better VAB performance (positive edges) predicted 55 worse selective and sustained attention performance, and vice versa. Predictions from the saCPM 56 mirrored these results, with the network's negative edges predicting better VAB performance. 57 Furthermore, the vabCPM's positive edges significantly overlapped with the saCPM's negative 58 edges, and vice versa. We conclude that these partially overlapping networks each have general 59 attentional functions. They may indicate an individual's propensity to diffusely deploy attention, 60 predicting better performance for some tasks and worse for others. 61 62 Significance statement 63A longstanding question in psychology and neuroscience is whether we have general 64 capacities or domain-specific ones. For such general capacities, what is the common function? 65Here we addressed these questions using the attentional blink (AB) task and neuroimaging. 66Individuals searched for two items in a stream of distracting items; the second item was often 67 missed when it closely followed the first. How often the second item was missed varied across 68 individuals, which was reflected in attention networks. Curiously, the networks' pattern of 69 function that was good for the AB was bad for other tasks, and vice versa. We propose that these 70 networks may represent not a general attentional ability, but rather the tendency to attend in a 71 less focused manner. 72

No abstract

Early models of multisensory integration posited that cross-modal signals only converged in higher-order association cortices and that vision automatically dominates. However, recent studies have challenged this view. In this study, the significance of the alignment of motion axes and spatial alignment across visual and tactile stimuli, as well as the effect of hand visibility on visuo-tactile interactions were examined. Using binocular rivalry, opposed motions were presented to each eye and participants were required to track the perceived visual direction. A tactile motion that was either a leftward or rightward sweep across the fingerpad was intermittently presented. Results showed that tactile effects on visual percepts were dependent on the alignment of motion axes: rivalry between up/down visual motions was not modulated at all by left/right tactile motion. On the other hand, visual percepts could be altered by tactile motion signals when both modalities shared a common axis of motion: a tactile stimulus could maintain the dominance duration of a congruent visual stimulus and shorten its suppression period. The effects were also conditional on the spatial alignment of the visual and tactile stimuli, being eliminated when the tactile device was displaced 15 cm away to the right of the visual stimulus. In contrast, visibility of the hand touching the tactile stimulus facilitated congruent switches relative to a visual-only baseline but did not present a significant advantage overall. In sum, these results show a low-level sensory interaction that is conditional on visual and tactile stimuli sharing a common motion axis and location in space.