Attentional Modulation and Selection – An Integrated Approach

Rothenstein, Albert L.; Tsotsos, John K.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099681

Cited by 22 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent analyses of neuroimaging data suggest that attention modulates precision by top-down post-synaptic gain control . There are several hypotheses concerning the neuronal mechanisms by which such modulation is achieved (Rothenstein & Tsotsos, 2014). Most assume that it is at the microcircuit level, e.g.…”

Section: Attention and Working Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive functions of intracellular mechanisms for contextual amplification

Phillips

2017

Brain and Cognition

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Attention and Working Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive functions of intracellular mechanisms for contextual amplification

Phillips

2017

Brain and Cognition

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Sequential sampling models view decision making as the bounded integration of noisy (sensory) information over an extended period of time until a criterion indicates that sufficient information has been collected (bounded integration). The integration process sums independent estimates of sensory evidence to average out noise that can be present in the stimulus or its neural representation (Rothenstein and Tsotsos 2014;Smith et al 2004). Sequential sampling models are closely related to signal detection theory (Rothenstein and Tsotsos 2014).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The integration process sums independent estimates of sensory evidence to average out noise that can be present in the stimulus or its neural representation (Rothenstein and Tsotsos 2014;Smith et al 2004). Sequential sampling models are closely related to signal detection theory (Rothenstein and Tsotsos 2014). However, in contrast to signal detection theory, they treat decision making as a process that extends over time, rather than as a single discrete event.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of decision onset

Teichert

Grinband

Ferrera

2016

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neural mechanisms of decision making are thought to require the integration of evidence over time until a response threshold is reached. Much work suggests that response threshold can be adjusted via top-down control as a function of speed or accuracy requirements. In contrast, the time of integration onset has received less attention and is believed to be determined mostly by afferent or preprocessing delays. However, a number of influential studies over the past decade challenge this assumption and begin to paint a multifaceted view of the phenomenology of decision onset. This review highlights the challenges involved in initiating the integration of evidence at the optimal time and the potential benefits of adjusting integration onset to task demands. The review outlines behavioral and electrophysiolgical studies suggesting that the onset of the integration process may depend on properties of the stimulus, the task, attention, and response strategy. Most importantly, the aggregate findings in the literature suggest that integration onset may be amenable to top-down regulation, and may be adjusted much like response threshold to exert cognitive control and strategically optimize the decision process to fit immediate behavioral requirements. diffusion model; integration onset; non-decision time; sequential sampling model A GREAT DEAL OF WORK in perceptual decision making has focused on describing the "stopping rules" that terminate a decision process when integration of further evidence provides little added benefit. It is often neglected that understanding when and how the decision process is initiated may be equally important. In line with sequential sampling models of decision making reviewed below, the decision process can be defined as the integration of evidence over time. Within this framework, decision onset is the time at which evidence integration begins. If integration is initiated too early, i.e., before relevant information is available, it may be hampered by noise or irrelevant information (Laming 1979). Conversely, important information may be lost and/or the decision process may be prolonged unnecessarily if the integration is initiated too late. These issues are further complicated by the fact that the encoding of a stimulus and extraction of task-relevant features take variable amounts of time depending on task demands and stimulus properties. Hence, the optimal time for integration onset may be hard to predict and may vary on a trial-by-trial basis.This review argues that not only is a detailed understanding of the neural mechanisms governing decision onset necessary to provide a comprehensive description of evidence-based decision making but decision onset can have a profound impact on decision outcomes in everyday life. Over the past decade numerous articles have reviewed diverse aspects of decision making (Churchland and Ditterich 2012;Drugowitsch and Pouget 2012;Heekeren et al. 2008;Heitz and Schall 2013;Kepecs and Mainen 2012;Kurniawan et al. 2011;Mulder et al. 2014;Nienborg et al. 2...

show abstract

“…In other words, these actions would occur before stimulus onset, consistent with Müller and Rabbitt's ( 1989 ) conclusion that in order for priming to be effective subjects must be informed of it 300–80 ms before stimulus onset. Once the feedforward pass is complete, ST's θ-WTA process (a winner-take-all decision process based on a binning threshold θ that selects a spatially contiguous set of largest values within some retinotopic representation, such as the responses of a specific neural selectivity or filter across the visual field—see Tsotsos et al, 1995 ; Rothenstein and Tsotsos, 2014 ) makes a decision as to what to attend and passes this choice on to the next stage. The vTE, which is monitoring the execution of the script, then takes this choice, compares it to the task goals, and decides on whether the discrimination task is completed in a positive or negative manner and the task is complete.…”

Section: What Do Cognitive Programs Have To Control?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A brief overview of ST is in order. For a full description of ST see Tsotsos ( 2011 ), Rothenstein and Tsotsos ( 2014 )—those details will not be repeated here. The roots of ST lie in a set of formal proofs regarding the difficulty of comparing one image to another using the methods of computational complexity (Tsotsos, 1989 , 1990 ).…”

Section: What Do Cognitive Programs Have To Control?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive programs: software for attention's executive

Tsotsos

Kruijne

2014

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What are the computational tasks that an executive controller for visual attention must solve? This question is posed in the context of the Selective Tuning model of attention. The range of required computations go beyond top-down bias signals or region-of-interest determinations, and must deal with overt and covert fixations, process timing and synchronization, information routing, memory, matching control to task, spatial localization, priming, and coordination of bottom-up with top-down information. During task execution, results must be monitored to ensure the expected results. This description includes the kinds of elements that are common in the control of any kind of complex machine or system. We seek a mechanistic integration of the above, in other words, algorithms that accomplish control. Such algorithms operate on representations, transforming a representation of one kind into another, which then forms the input to yet another algorithm. Cognitive Programs (CPs) are hypothesized to capture exactly such representational transformations via stepwise sequences of operations. CPs, an updated and modernized offspring of Ullman's Visual Routines, impose an algorithmic structure to the set of attentional functions and play a role in the overall shaping of attentional modulation of the visual system so that it provides its best performance. This requires that we consider the visual system as a dynamic, yet general-purpose processor tuned to the task and input of the moment. This differs dramatically from the almost universal cognitive and computational views, which regard vision as a passively observing module to which simple questions about percepts can be posed, regardless of task. Differing from Visual Routines, CPs explicitly involve the critical elements of Visual Task Executive (vTE), Visual Attention Executive (vAE), and Visual Working Memory (vWM). Cognitive Programs provide the software that directs the actions of the Selective Tuning model of visual attention.

show abstract

Attentional Modulation and Selection – An Integrated Approach

Cited by 22 publications

References 54 publications

Cognitive functions of intracellular mechanisms for contextual amplification

Cognitive functions of intracellular mechanisms for contextual amplification

The importance of decision onset

Cognitive programs: software for attention's executive

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About