Fundamental Components of Attention

Knudsen, Eric I.

doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.30.051606.094256

Cited by 831 publications

(690 citation statements)

References 94 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

657

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One hypothesis supported by several experimental results (reviewed in Boehnke and Munoz 2008;Knudsen 2007) is that neurons in the SC integrate "bottom-up" with "top-down" information to signal the most important stimulus at any particular time. It is suggested that task-related information about the stimulus is conveyed to the SC through cortical and basal ganglia connections (Boehnke and Munoz 2008).…”

Section: What Is the Relationship Between Ssa And Behavior?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus-specific adaptation, habituation and change detection in the gaze control system

Gutfreund¹

2012

Biol Cybern

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This prospect article addresses the neurobiology of detecting and responding to changes or unexpected events. Change detection is an ongoing computational task performed by the brain as part of the broader process of saliency mapping and selection of the next target for attention. In the optic tectum (OT) of the barn owl, the probability of the stimulus has a dramatic influence on the neural response to that stimulus; rare or deviant stimuli induce stronger responses compared to common stimuli. This phenomenon, known as stimulus-specific adaptation, has recently attracted scientific interest because of its possible role in change detection. In the barn owl's OT, it may underlie the ability to orient specifically to unexpected events and is therefore opening new directions for research on the neurobiology of fundamental psychological phenomena such as habituation, attention, and surprise.

show abstract

Section: What Is the Relationship Between Ssa And Behavior?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus-specific adaptation, habituation and change detection in the gaze control system

Gutfreund¹

2012

Biol Cybern

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…a top-down process, for example, when we search for a certain brand of pasta on the shelves in a supermarket). Early attention components are associated with more involuntary, less controlled mechanisms, whereas later attention components are thought to reflect the slower top-down mechanisms of voluntary or more controlled processing (28,29) . At least three different methodologies have been applied in previous studies to asses visual attentional biases for food: (1) measuring response latencies or the calculation of an interference effect during a foodStroop task; (2) assessment of response latencies during a spatial attention paradigm, such as the visual probe task, the exogenous cueing task or the visual search task; (3) recordings of eye-movements during an attention paradigm.…”

Section: Assessment Of Visual Attention For Food: Many Roads Leadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Worry or craving? A selective review of evidence for food-related attention biases in obese individuals, eating-disorder patients, restrained eaters and healthy samples

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Living in an 'obesogenic' environment poses a serious challenge for weight maintenance. However, many people are able to maintain a healthy weight indicating that not everybody is equally susceptible to the temptations of this food environment. The way in which someone perceives and reacts to food cues, that is, cognitive processes, could underlie differences in susceptibility. An attention bias for food could be such a cognitive factor that contributes to overeating. However, an attention bias for food has also been implicated with restrained eating and eating-disorder symptomatology. The primary aim of the present review was to determine whether an attention bias for food is specifically related to obesity while also reviewing evidence for attention biases in eating-disorder patients, restrained eaters and healthy-weight individuals. Another aim was to systematically examine how selective attention for food relates (causally) to eating behaviour. Current empirical evidence on attention bias for food within obese samples, eating-disorder patients, and, even though to a lesser extent, in restrained eaters is contradictory. However, present experimental studies provide relatively consistent evidence that an attention bias for food contributes to subsequent food intake. This review highlights the need to distinguish not only between different (temporal) attention bias components, but also to take different motivations (craving v. worry) and their impact on attentional processing into account. Overall, the current state of research suggests that biased attention could be one important cognitive mechanism by which the food environment tempts us into overeating.Attention bias: Obesity: Craving: Restrained eating: Eating disorder Surrounded by an 'obesogenic' food environment?Obesity and overweight constitute a serious risk for psychological and physical wellbeing (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) . The WHO estimates that 2·8 million people die each year due to the adverse consequences of overweight and obesity (7,8) . Ultimately, obesity is caused by a long-lasting imbalance of energy intake and energy expenditure. This imbalance is mainly caused by excessive food intake (9,10) . Our 'obesogenic' food environment is characterised by an abundance of palatable, high-energy, cheap and convenient food that is constantly available and promoted aggressively (11,12) . Living in such an environment poses a serious challenge for maintaining a healthy weight. However, the majority of individuals have a healthy weight suggesting that not everybody is equally susceptible to the temptations of this obesogenic food environment. What explains these apparent individual differences in susceptibility? One hypothesis is that certain people find high-energy food more attractive and that this increased 'hedonic hunger' (13) leads to craving and (over)eating thereby contributing to weight gain and obesity. Cognitive processes (i.e. the way in which someone processes and perceives food temptations),

show abstract

“…Indeed, our capacity to process information is severely limited (Allport, 1989;Broadbent, 1958;Carrasco, 2011), suggesting that the way in which we prioritise signals is a critical mechanism driving detailed perception and goaldriven action. Given this limited capacity, it is broadly held that signals compete in order to achieve detailed analysis (Desimone & Duncan, 1995;Knudsen, 2007;Rescorla & Wagner, 1972). Adding to the complexity of the problem, there are several sources of bias influencing the outcome of this competitive process, originating from the physical properties of the world (Itti & Koch, 2001;Wolfe & Horowitz, 2004), as well as a variety of internal states .…”

Section: You May Infringe the Author's Moral Rights If Youmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather, it is widely argued that behaviour reflects the dynamic interplay between top-down and bottom-up control (Carrasco, 2011;Desimone & Duncan, 1995;Knudsen, 2007;Pashler, Johnston, & Ruthruff, 2001). Indeed, it is this interplay that forms the basis for the influential framework of attentional control put forward by Desimone and Duncan (1995), namely the biased competition theory of selective attention.…”

Section: Learning To Attend: Effects Of Predictiveness On Perception mentioning

confidence: 99%

Automaticity and cognitive control in the learned predictiveness effect.

Shone¹,

Harris²,

Livesey³

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In novel contexts, learning is biased toward cues previously experienced as predictive compared with cues previously experienced as nonpredictive. This is known as learned predictiveness. A recent finding has shown that instructions issued about the causal status of cues influences the expression of learned predictiveness, suggesting that controlled, volitional processes play a role in this effect. Three experiments are reported further investigating the effects of instructional manipulations on learned predictiveness. Experiment 1 confirms the influence of inferential processes, extending previous work to suggest that instructions affect associative memory as well as causal reasoning. Experiments 2 and 3 used a procedure designed to tease apart inferential and automatic contributions to the bias by presenting instructed causes that were previously predictive and previously nonpredictive. The results demonstrate that the prior predictiveness of cues influences subsequent learning over and above the effect of explicit instruction. However, it appears that the relationship between explicit instruction and predictive history is interactive rather than additive. Potential explanations for this interactivity are discussed.

show abstract

Fundamental Components of Attention

Cited by 831 publications

References 94 publications

Stimulus-specific adaptation, habituation and change detection in the gaze control system

Stimulus-specific adaptation, habituation and change detection in the gaze control system

Worry or craving? A selective review of evidence for food-related attention biases in obese individuals, eating-disorder patients, restrained eaters and healthy samples

Automaticity and cognitive control in the learned predictiveness effect.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About