Changes in predictive cuing modulate the hemispheric distribution of the P1 inhibitory response to attentional targets

Expectancy modulates pupil size both during endogenous orienting and during re‐orienting of spatial attention: A study with isoluminant stimuli

“…In line with the results of our previous studies (Doricchi et al., ; Lasaponara et al., , ), the analyses of RTs showed that the costs of re‐orienting to frequentinvalid targets associated with non‐predictive cues were reduced or even abolished as compared withre‐orienting to infrequentinvalid targets associated with predictive ones. In contrast, attentional benefits with valid cues were maintained independently of cue predictiveness.…”

“…These studies have demonstrated higher deactivation of the right temporal parietal junction (TPJ) with predictive rather than non‐predictive spatial (Doricchi et al., ) and temporal cues (Shulman et al., ). Higher TPJ deactivation with predictive cues is associated with enhanced filtering out of uncued locations, as demonstrated by higher RTs costs in re‐orienting towards infrequent invalidly cued targets as compared to frequent ones (Doricchi et al., ; Lasaponara, Chica, Lecce, Lupianez, & Doricchi, ; Lasaponara et al., ). Anatomical studies in the monkey suggest that cortical areas that are equivalent of the human TPJ, that is, the superior temporal gyrus and the inferior parietal lobule, are important recipients of noradrenergic innervation from the locus coeruleus (LC; Foote & Morrison, ; Morrison & Foote, ).…”

“…Nonetheless, ERPs investigations of endogenous orienting might suggest that this relationship is, interestingly, more articulated. These show (Lasaponara et al., , ) that compared to non‐predictive cues, predictive ones enhance both the amplitude of the occipital‐parietal “Early Directing Attention Negativity” component (EDAN) that marks the very initial phases of cue interpretation and orienting (vanVelzen & Eimer, ; Harter, Miller, Price, LaLonde, & Keyes, ; Nobre, Sebestyen, & Miniussi, ) and the amplitude of the “Late Directing Attention Positivity” component (LDAP) that reflects the setting‐up of facilitatory effects in posterior visual areas (Hopf & Mangun, ). In contrast, non‐predictive cues enhance the amplitude of the Anterior Directing Attention Negativity component (ADAN), which reflects supra‐modal mechanisms of attentional engagement in frontal areas (Eimer, Velzen, & Driver, ; Praamstra, Boutsen, & Humphreys, ).…”

No evidence that predictions and attention modulate the first feedforward sweep of cortical information processing

“…Indeed, in our study, both prediction and attention modulated later stages of information processing. Prediction effects on the P1 were admittedly weak and absent for the N1 (see Lasaponara et al, 2017 for similar findings), but prediction effects on the P3a and P3b were robust and exhibited a pattern that is consistent with earlier work demonstrating their role in novelty processing and prediction updating (Friedman et al, 2001;Marzecová et al, 2017;Polich, 2007). Consistent with predictive processing accounts and the idea of the inverse scaling of neural response in relation to the size of prediction errors (den Ouden, Friston, 2009;Hohwy, 2012), we observed larger P3a and P3b responses to unpredicted than to predicted stimuli at both attended and unattended locations.…”

“…that visual processing after 100ms is susceptible to top-down modulation (e.g., Di Russo et al, 2003;Lasaponara et al, 2017;Marzecová, Widmann, Sanmiguel, Kotz, & Schröger, 2017;Noesselt et al, 2002). Therefore, to confirm longer-latency activity modulations, in a set of secondary analyses, we also examined how attention and prediction, separately and/or in interaction, modulated stimulus processing over time, after 100ms.…”