Attentional reorientation along the meridians of the visual field: are there different neural mechanisms at play?

Abstract

Hemispatial neglect, after unilateral lesions to parietal brain areas, is characterized by an inability to respond to unexpected stimuli in contralesional space. As the visual field's horizontal meridian is most severely affected, the brain networks controlling visuospatial processes might be tuned explicitly to this axis. We investigated such a potential directional tuning in the dorsal and ventral frontoparietal attention networks, with a particular focus on attentional reorientation. We used an orientation-discrimination task where a spatial pre-cue indicated the target position with 80% validity. Healthy participants (n = 29) performed this task in two runs and were required to (re-)orient attention either only along the horizontal or the vertical meridian, while fMRI and behavioral measures were recorded. By using a General Linear Model for behavioral and fMRI data, Dynamic Causal Modeling for effective connectivity, and other predictive approaches, we found strong statistical evidence for a reorientation effect for horizontal and vertical runs. However, neither neural nor behavioral measures differed between vertical and horizontal reorienting. Moreover, models from one run successfully predicted the cueing condition in the respective other run. Our results suggest that activations in the dorsal and ventral attention networks represent higher-order cognitive processes related to spatial attentional (re-)orientating that are independent of directional tuning.

Segregation of Neural Circuits Involved in Social Gaze and Non-Social Arrow Cues: Evidence from an Activation Likelihood Estimation Meta-Analysis

“…Importantly, although all included experiments used similar methodologies, they also differed in some aspects. More specifically, in some experiments, only one type of cue was used (e.g., arrow cues: Dombert et al, 2016 ; Mao et al, 2007 ; Natale et al, 2009 ; Noesselt et al, 2002 ; Peelen et al, 2004 ; Small et al, 2003 ; Steinkamp et al, 2020 ; Thiel et al, 2004 ; Weissman & Prado, 2012 ; gaze cues: Böckler et al, 2016 ; Caruana et al, 2015 ; Koike et al, 2019 ; Lee et al, 2010 ; Sato et al, 2016 ; Turk-Browne et al, 2013 ). In contrast, in other experiments, both social and non-social cues were used (e.g., Greene et al, 2009 ; Hietanen et al, 2006 ; Joseph et al, 2014 ; Redcay et al, 2010 , 2012 ).…”

“…In contrast, in other experiments, both social and non-social cues were used (e.g., Greene et al, 2009 ; Hietanen et al, 2006 ; Joseph et al, 2014 ; Redcay et al, 2010 , 2012 ). While experiments with non-social cues, or with both arrow and gaze cues, involved similar tasks (i.e., detection tasks, e.g., Hietanen et al, 2006 ; Mao et al, 2007 ; Thiel et al, 2004 ; discrimination tasks, e.g., Dombert et al, 2016 ; Greene et al, 2009 ; Joseph et al, 2014 ; Natale et al, 2009 ; Noesselt et al, 2002 ; Peelen et al, 2004 ; Small et al, 2003 ; Steinkamp et al, 2020 ; Weissman & Prado, 2012 ), experiments with social cues could either involve detection or discrimination tasks (e.g., Böckler et al, 2016 ; Lee et al, 2010 ; Sato et al, 2016 ; Turk-Browne et al, 2013 ), or joint attention tasks (e.g., Caruana et al, 2015 ; Koike et al, 2019 , 2010 ; Redcay et al, 2012 ). In this latter case, to allow comparisons with the typical gaze cueing tasks, only joint attention studies that required detection or discrimination of targets presented at the cued/uncued location were included.…”

“…In this latter case, to allow comparisons with the typical gaze cueing tasks, only joint attention studies that required detection or discrimination of targets presented at the cued/uncued location were included. Finally, the included experiments differed in terms of cue predictive validity as cues could be predictive (e.g., Caruana et al, 2015 ; Dombert et al, 2016 ; Natale et al, 2009 ; Redcay et al, 2010 , 2012 ; Small et al, 2003 ; Steinkamp et al, 2020 ; Thiel et al, 2004 ; Turk-Browne et al, 2013 ; Weissman & Prado, 2012 ), or not (i.e., Böckler et al, 2016 ; Greene et al, 2009 ; Hietanen et al, 2006 ; Joseph et al, 2014 ; Koike et al, 2019 ; Lee et al, 2010 ; Mao et al, 2007 ; Noesselt et al, 2002 ; Peelen et al, 2004 ; Sato et al, 2016 ) of the target location. Importantly, this inclusion strategy is based on Müller et al ( 2018 ), who recommends that a good meta-analysis might include different paradigms or tasks to investigate effects that are consistent across strategies, provided that all paradigms or tasks rely on similar higher-order supervisory control processes.…”