Endogenous orienting in the archer fish

Saban, William; Sekely, Liora; Klein, Raymond M.; Gabay, Shai

doi:10.1073/pnas.1700574114

Cited by 39 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, contrary to most of the literature, some data imply that neocortical regions are not exclusively responsible for volitional orienting and that subcortical regions also might be involved in the typical endogenous orienting tasks (Katyal & Ress, 2014;McAlonan, Cavanaugh, & Wurtz, 2008;Saban, Sekely, Klein, & Gabay, 2017a;Saban, Sekely, Klein, & Gabay, 2017b). For example, and most pertinent to the current study, consider these two very recent findings.…”

Section: Alternative Viewpointcontrasting

confidence: 61%

Probabilistic versus “Pure” Volitional Orienting: a Monocular Difference

Saban

Klein

Gabay

2018

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human volitional orienting is typically assessed using Posner's endogenous cuing task. As a volitional process, the literature has long emphasized the role of neocortical structures in this higher cognitive function. Based on recent data, we explored the possibility that subcortical channels may have a functional role in volitional orienting as measured by a Posner cuing task in which a nonspatial feature of a centrally presented cue is predictively related to the location of the target. In addition, we have compared this typical cuing task to a "purer" version, which does not involve the probability manipulation. A sensitive behavioral method was used to probe the contribution of monocular channels (mostly subcortical) in the two types of endogenous orienting tasks. In both tasks, a spatially informative cue and its ensuing target were presented to the same or different eyes at varying cue-target intervals. In the typically used endogenous task, the onset of facilitation was apparent earlier when the cue and target were presented to the same eye. In contrast, in the "pure" task no difference was found between the two eye-of-origin conditions. These data support the notion that endogenous facilitation, as measured in the typical Posner cuing task, involves lower monocular regions. Hence, in the typical endogenous task, which was developed to explore "volitional" orienting, a simple associative learning mechanism might elicit monocular, rapid orienting responses. Notably, the typical volitional orienting paradigm might be contaminated by simple contingency benefits and thus may not provide a pure measure of volitional processes.

show abstract

Section: Alternative Viewpointcontrasting

confidence: 61%

Probabilistic versus “Pure” Volitional Orienting: a Monocular Difference

Saban

Klein

Gabay

2018

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The key manipulation of the present study is that the reward is contingent with spatial attentional orienting as a cognitive behavior using a central cue. Note that the cue used in all experiments was a central arrow cue, which has been typically used in an endogenous cueing paradigm to study voluntary attentional orienting (Posner, 1980), which depends on the cue "informativeness" about how much the cue validly predicts the location of upcoming targets (Jonides, 1981;Vossel et al, 2006;Saban et al, 2017). However, the cues used in the present study are not compatible with the requisition of endogenous cues because the arrow cue had no information about the upcoming target location.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Attentional Orienting by Non-informative Cue Is Shaped via Reinforcement Learning

Cho

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been demonstrated that a reward-associated stimulus feature captures attention involuntarily. The present study tested whether spatial attentional orienting is biased via reinforcement learning. Participants were to identify a target stimulus presented in one of two placeholders, preceded by a non-informative arrow cue at the center of the display. Importantly, reward was available when the target occurred at a location cued by a reward cue, defined as a specific color (experiments 1 and 3) or a colordirection combination (experiment 2). The attentional bias of the reward cue was significantly increased as trials progressed, resulting in a greater cue-validity effect for the reward cue than the no-reward cue. This attentional bias was still evident even when controlling for the possibility that the incentive salience of the reward cue color modulates the cue-validity effect (experiment 2) or when the reward was withdrawn after reinforcement learning (experiment 3). However, it disappeared when the reward was provided regardless of cue validity (experiment 4), implying that the reinforcement contingency between reward and attentional orienting is a critical determinant of reinforcement learning-based spatial attentional modulation. Our findings highlight that a spatial attentional bias is shaped by value via reinforcement learning.

show abstract

“…Dorris et al [66] demonstrated that at a CTOA of 200 ms, behavior was inhibited on cued trials as compared to uncued trials (as with humans), and that the activity of neurons in the SC was attenuated at the cued location (i.e., the target-related activity of neurons was lower when they had been previously been stimulated by a cue at the same location). Furthermore, when the same neurons were stimulated electrically (through the recording electrode), rather than by a visual stimulus to induce a saccade, facilitation rather than inhibition was observed, suggesting that the SC was not directly inhibited [65]. In later work [67], inhibition was observed behaviorally in monkeys at later CTOAs (100, 200, 500, and 1200 ms) while recordings were collected from both visual and visuomotor neurons in the SC.…”

Section: Monkey Neurophysiologymentioning

confidence: 96%

“…This finding supports the observation of IOR in newborn infants (see section above demonstrating that the generation of IOR does not require a fully developed cortex). In a subsequent study [65], archer fish were exposed to an endogenous version of the Posner cueing task in which the color of a central stimulus indicated the likely side of the upcoming target. The archer fish showed early facilitation, which the authors attributed to learning rather than volitional control.…”

Section: Manipulations Aimed At Exploring the Roles Of Neural Structumentioning

confidence: 99%

What Neuroscientific Studies Tell Us about Inhibition of Return

Satel

Wilson

Klein

2019

Vision

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An inhibitory aftermath of orienting, inhibition of return (IOR), has intrigued scholars since its discovery about 40 years ago. Since then, the phenomenon has been subjected to a wide range of neuroscientific methods and the results of these are reviewed in this paper. These include direct manipulations of brain structures (which occur naturally in brain damage and disease or experimentally as in TMS and lesion studies) and measurements of brain activity (in humans using EEG and fMRI and in animals using single unit recording). A variety of less direct methods (e.g., computational modeling, developmental studies, etc.) have also been used. The findings from this wide range of methods support the critical role of subcortical and cortical oculomotor pathways in the generation and nature of IOR.

show abstract

Endogenous orienting in the archer fish

Cited by 39 publications

References 62 publications

Probabilistic versus “Pure” Volitional Orienting: a Monocular Difference

Probabilistic versus “Pure” Volitional Orienting: a Monocular Difference

Attentional Orienting by Non-informative Cue Is Shaped via Reinforcement Learning

What Neuroscientific Studies Tell Us about Inhibition of Return

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About