Electrophysiological evidence for enhanced attentional deployment in spatial learners

Abstract

Visual spatial attention is important during navigation processes that rely on a cognitive map, because spatial relationships between environmental landmarks need to be selected, encoded, and learned. People who navigate using this strategy are spatial learners, and this process relies on the hippocampus. Conversely, response learners memorize a series of actions to navigate, which relies on the caudate nucleus. Response learning, which is more efficient, is thought to involve less demanding cognitive operations, and is related to reduced grey matter in the hippocampus. To test if navigational strategy can impact visual attention performance, we investigated if spatial and response learners showed differences in attentional engagement used during a visual spatial task. We tested 40 response learners and 39 spatial learners, as determined by the 4-on-8 Virtual Maze (4/8 VM), on a target detection task designed to elicit an N2pc component (an index visual spatial attention). Spatial learners produced a larger N2pc amplitude during target detection compared to response learners. This relationship might represent an increase in goal-directed attention towards target stimuli or a more global increase in cognitive function that has been previously observed in spatial learners.

Caudate nucleus-dependent navigation strategies are associated with increased risk-taking and set-shifting behavior

“…The groups did not significantly differ in terms of age (spatial: M = 22.68, SD = 3.91 yr; response: M = 24.28, SD = 4.96 yr; t (48) = 1.266, P = 0.212) or education (spatial: M = 15.60, SD = 1.89; response: M = 16.04, SD = 1.93; t (48) = 0.815, P = 0.419) or sex (χ 2 (1, N = 50) = 0.439, P= 0.508). As has been previously reported, response learners made significantly fewer probe errors associated with reduced landmark use during navigation: 22 response learners made no probe trial errors, whereas only eight spatial learners made no error (χ 2 (1, N = 50) = 16.333, P < 0.0001, Cramer's ϕ = 0.572) (Iaria et al 2003;Bohbot et al 2007;Konishi and Bohbot 2013;West et al 2015West et al , 2018Drisdelle et al 2017).…”

“…On the first trial, if participants reported using two or more landmarks to remember the location of the objects (e.g., going to the left of the tree, the two paths on the right of the rock and right in front of the mountain) and did not report using a sequence from a single starting point, they were categorized as spatial learners. If the participant reported using a sequence or pattern, counting from a single starting point (e.g., counting pathways starting from the tree, and then selecting Paths 1, 3, 5, and 6) to remember the locations of the objects, they were categorized as response learners (Iaria et al 2003;Bohbot et al 2007Bohbot et al , 2013Andersen 2011;Dahmani and Bohbot 2015;West et al 2015West et al , 2018Drisdelle et al 2017;Aumont et al 2019).…”

Autistic traits in neurotypical individuals are associated with increased landmark use during navigation

“…When learning a new environment, spatial learning requires more visual attention resources compared to response learning (Lindberg & Gärling, ). Supporting this observation, people who were categorized as spatial learners displayed increased visuospatial attention towards targets compared to response learners (Drisdelle et al, ). Further, eye‐tracking research found that spatial strategy use was associated with a greater number of fixations on landmarks when completing a navigation task compared to response learners (Andersen, Dahmani, Konishi, & Bohbot, ).…”

“…Further, eye‐tracking research found that spatial strategy use was associated with a greater number of fixations on landmarks when completing a navigation task compared to response learners (Andersen, Dahmani, Konishi, & Bohbot, ). It is hypothesized that the spatial navigation strategy might impact the deployment of visuospatial attention by biasing attention to details in the environment that facilitate the constriction of an internal cognitive map (Drisdelle et al, ). Together, these results suggest that the autistic traits of hyper‐attention to detail and sensory hypersensitivity (Baron‐Cohen, Knickmeyer, & Belmonte, ; Baron‐Cohen et al, ) could support spatial strategy use and might explain observations of increased hippocampal grey matter in individuals who display such traits.…”

“…This was based on the spatial navigation strategy's reliance on the hippocampus, where ASD and higher autistic traits predict increased hippocampal grey matter, and on the response strategy's reliance on the caudate nucleus, which has been shown to be less active in people with ASD. Further, spatial strategy use has been associated with directing more attention to local details in the visual environment (Andersen et al, ) and enhanced visuospatial attention (Drisdelle et al, ). Together, these studies suggest that higher levels of autistic traits in the neurotypical population would be related to the adoption of the spatial strategy during navigation.…”