Independent effects of endogenous and exogenous attention in touch

Jones, Alexander; Förster, Bettina

doi:10.3109/08990220.2013.779243

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Experiment 1 showed a main effect of endogenous spatial attention with faster RTs for attended over unattended targets. This shows that participants followed instructions and that a rhythmic cue can be used to direct tactile attention similar to what has previously been demonstrated using a single symbolic visual (e.g., Forster & Eimer, 2005;Haegens et al, 2011) or tactile cue (Jones & Forster, 2013;Jones & Forster, 2014). Interestingly, endogenous spatial attention did not interact with the effects of exogenous temporal attention.…”

supporting

confidence: 80%

“…When endogenous and exogenous spatial attention have been contrasted, independent RT effects have been observed suggesting these are separate mechanisms, at least under low task demands (Jones & Forster, 2013; see also Berger, Henik, & Rafal, 2005 for similar results in visual orienting). The effects of tactile temporal attention have been less explored but with a few exceptions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Temporal expectancies and rhythmic cueing in touch: The influence of spatial attention

Jones

2019

Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Temporal expectancies and rhythmic cueing in touch: The influence of spatial attention

Jones

2019

Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The behavioural results are in line with previous studies of tactile attention showing IOR in the exogenous task (Lloyd et al ., ; Cohen et al ., ; Jones & Forster, ), facilitation of attended targets in the endogenous predictive task (Lloyd et al ., ; Cohen et al ., ; Jones & Forster, ) and endogenous counter‐predictive task (Chica et al ., ). We did not demonstrate a presence of IOR during endogenous attention, in accord with previous tactile studies with a similar paradigm (Chica et al ., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural correlates of endogenous attention, exogenous attention and inhibition of return in touch

Jones

Förster

2014

Eur J of Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selective attention helps process the myriad of information constantly touching our body. Both endogenous and exogenous mechanisms are relied upon to effectively process this information; however, it is unclear how they relate in the sense of touch. In three tasks we contrasted endogenous and exogenous event‐related potential (ERP) and behavioural effects. Unilateral tactile cues were followed by a tactile target at the same or opposite hand. Clear behavioural effects showed facilitation of expected targets both when the cue predicted targets at the same (endogenous predictive task) and opposite hand (endogenous counter‐predictive task), and these effects also correlated with ERP effects of endogenous attention. In an exogenous task, where the cue was non‐informative, inhibition of return (IOR) was observed. The electrophysiological results demonstrated early effects of exogenous attention followed by later endogenous attention modulations. These effects were independent in both the endogenous predictive and exogenous tasks. However, voluntarily directing attention away from a cued body part influenced the early exogenous marker (N80). This suggests that the two mechanisms are interdependent, at least when the task requires more demanding shifts of attention. The early marker of exogenous tactile attention, the N80, was not directly related to IOR, which may suggest that exogenous attention and IOR are not necessarily two sides of the same coin. This study adds valuable new insight into how we process and select information presented to our body, showing both independent and interdependent effects of endogenous and exogenous attention in touch.

show abstract

“…In these studies, participants were instructed to attend to their left or right hand while a tactile stimulus was delivered to the attended or the unattended hand. ERPs elicited by attended stimuli were characterized by an amplitude enhancement of the mid-latency somatosensory ERP components, P100 and N140, followed by a sustained attentional negativity (Desmedt and Robertson, 1977; Michie, 1984; Michie et al, 1987; García-Larrea et al, 1995; Eimer and Forster, 2003; Forster and Eimer, 2004; Jones and Forster, 2013). The time course of these attentional ERP modulations indicates that the effects of tactile attention begin already in modality-specific somatosensory cortical areas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attention to the body depends on eye-in-orbit position

Gherri¹,

Förster²

2014

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attentional selectivity in touch is modulated by the position of the body in external space. For instance, during endogenous attention tasks in which tactile stimuli are presented to the hands, the effect of attention is reduced when the hands are placed far apart than when they are close together and when the hands are crossed as compared to when they are placed in their anatomical position. This suggests that both somatotopic and external spatial reference frames coding the hands’ locations contribute to the spatial selection of the relevant hand. Here we investigate whether tactile selection of hands is also modulated by the position of other body parts, not directly involved in tactile perception, such as eye-in-orbit (gaze direction). We asked participants to perform the same sustained tactile attention task while gazing laterally toward an eccentric fixation point (Eccentric gaze) or toward a central fixation point (Central gaze). Event-related potentials recorded in response to tactile non-target stimuli presented to the attended or unattended hand were compared as a function of gaze direction (Eccentric vs. Central conditions). Results revealed that attentional modulations were reduced in the Eccentric gaze condition as compared to the Central gaze condition in the time range of the Nd component (200–260 ms post-stimulus), demonstrating for the first time that the attentional selection of one of the hands is affected by the position of the eye in the orbit. Directing the eyes toward an eccentric position might be sufficient to create a misalignment between external and somatotopic frames of references reducing tactile attention. This suggests that the eye-in-orbit position contributes to the spatial selection of the task relevant body part.

show abstract

Independent effects of endogenous and exogenous attention in touch

Abstract: This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link:

Cited by 7 publications

References 38 publications

Temporal expectancies and rhythmic cueing in touch: The influence of spatial attention

Temporal expectancies and rhythmic cueing in touch: The influence of spatial attention

Neural correlates of endogenous attention, exogenous attention and inhibition of return in touch

Attention to the body depends on eye-in-orbit position

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About