Involvement of the human frontal eye field and multiple parietal areas in covert visual selection during conjunction search

Donner, Tobias H.; Kettermann, Andreas; Diesch, Eugen; Ostendorf, Florian; Villringer, Arno; Brandt, Stephan A.

doi:10.1046/j.1460-9568.2000.00223.x

Cited by 140 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study was approved by the Human Investigations Committee of the Yale University School of Medicine. Ten subjects (six males, four females, ages 21-36) participated in the first experiment whereas two other groups of 15 subjects participated in the second experiment (eight males, ages [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] and control experiment (six males, ages 20-37).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although some neuropsychological studies support the hypothesis that the parietal cortex is involved in feature integration (11)(12)(13), others do not (14). In addition, previous functional imaging studies have either shown no evidence for parietal cortex involvement in feature conjunction (15)(16)(17) or have produced inconclusive evidence (18)(19)(20) because of potential confounds such as task difficulty and͞or eye movements (19,21).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of the parietal cortex in visual feature binding

Shafritz

Gore²,

Marois³

2002

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

205

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

O bjects are defined by a multitude of features, such as color, shape, and motion, with each of the features processed by a host of visual areas located in ventral and dorsal regions of the cerebral cortex (1). The mechanism by which the brain integrates such distributed neural information to form a cohesive perception of objects is still unknown. Treisman and Gelade (2), Treisman (3), and others (4, 5) have proposed that the different features of each object are neurally bound together by means of attention to the object's location. Spatial attention is thought to be particularly critical for proper binding whenever there are multiple objects simultaneously present in the scene. It is under such conditions that the relationships between object features are most ambiguous, and hence more prone to conjunction errors (3, 4).Although spatial attention figures prominently in several models of feature binding, there is as yet little neurological evidence to support this location-based hypothesis. The parietal cortex is a likely candidate substrate given that it has been associated with the representation and manipulation of spatial information (6-10). However, the neural evidence to date is equivocal about the role of the parietal cortex in feature binding. Although some neuropsychological studies support the hypothesis that the parietal cortex is involved in feature integration (11-13), others do not (14). In addition, previous functional imaging studies have either shown no evidence for parietal cortex involvement in feature conjunction (15-17) or have produced inconclusive evidence (18-20) because of potential confounds such as task difficulty and͞or eye movements (19,21).To demonstrate that the parietal cortex plays a role in visual feature binding and to buttress the claim that this role is related to spatial attention, three criteria should be fulfilled. First, it is essential to localize the region(s) of the parietal cortex that are involved in spatial attention given that the parietal lobe also has been associated with nonspatial functions (19,(22)(23)(24). Second, the same parietal region(s) should show conjunction-related activation (i.e., more engaged in conditions requiring integration of features compared to conditions requiring only single feature judgments, even after controlling for task difficulty and eye movements). Third, the conjunction-related activation should primarily occur when there are multiple objects simultaneously present in the visual scene; for it is under such conditions that the relationship between objects features is ambiguous (4, 12, 13). In other words, the activation should be specifically observed under conditions in which spatial attention can assist proper feature binding. Here we report evidence from a series of fMRI experiments that specific regions of the right parietal cortex satisfy all three criteria. MethodsSubjects. Subjects were healthy, right-handed individuals, free of any history of neurological or psychiatric problems. All subjects gave written informed consent b...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of the parietal cortex in visual feature binding

Shafritz

Gore²,

Marois³

2002

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

205

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Neuroimaging studies have consistently revealed both rPPC and rFEF to be involved in visual search (Donner et al, 2000;2002;Nobre et al, 2003) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has demonstrated the importance of both areas in the control of conjunction search (Ellison et al, 2003;Lane et al, 2011a;Muggleton et al, 2003. However, to date this has only been investigated for near space, typically with the search arrays presented on a computer monitor.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Near and far space: Understanding the neural mechanisms of spatial attention

Lane¹,

Ball²,

Smith³

et al. 2011

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. ABSTRACTVisuospatial neglect is a multicomponent syndrome and one dissociation reported is between neglect for near (peripersonal) and far (extrapersonal) space. Owing to patient heterogeneity and extensive lesions it is difficult to determine the precise neural mechanisms underlying this dissociation using clinical methodology. In this study transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to examine the involvement of three areas in the undamaged brain while participants completed a conjunction search task in near and far space. The brain areas investigated were right posterior parietal cortex (rPPC), right frontal eye field (rFEF), and right ventral occipital cortex (rVO), each of which has been implicated in visuospatial processing. The results revealed a double dissociation whereby rPPC was involved for search in near space only, whilst rVO only became necessary when the task was completed in far space.These data provide clear evidence for a dorsal and ventral dissociation between the processing of near and far space, which is compatible with the functional roles previously attributed to the two streams. For example, the involvement of the dorsal stream in near space reflects its role in vision for action, since it is within this spatial location that actions can be performed. The results also revealed that rFEF is involved in the processing of visual search in both near and far space, and may contribute to visuospatial attention and/or the control of eye-movements irrespective of spatial frame. We discuss our results with respect to their clear ramifications for clinical diagnosis and neurorehabilitation.Lane, 3

show abstract

“…2000;Beauchamp & al. 2001], by visual conjunction search [Donner & al. 2000], and by covert attentive tracking of moving targets [Culham & al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anatomic dissociation of selective and suppressive processes in visual attention

Belmonte

Yurgelun‐Todd

2003

NeuroImage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dear Dr CarpenterThank you for your mail of 4 September and the enclosed reviews. Included with this reply is my revised manuscript NIMG2002-0247.Both reviewers commented to the effect that the paper addresses an interesting question and that our intraparietal result in particular is a significant extension of previous findings. The reviewers' several concerns focussed in general on (1) proper communication of our methods, which are non-standard, and (2) our interpretation, which in its original form gave short shrift to the alternative hypothesis that intraparietal sulcus is involved in preparing shifts of attention to targets in the contralateral hemifield. We will address the issue of interpretation first, since on this point both reviewers concurred.Both reviewers cited the fact that our observations cannot distinguish between (1) our stated hypothesis that intraparietal sulcus subserves suppression of unattended stimuli, and (2) the alternative hypothesis that intraparietal sulcus prepares attentional shifts into the currently unattended hemifield, and suggested that the shifting hypothesis be given an emphasis on a par with the suppression hypothesis. We have extensively rewritten the discussion in order to accomplish this shift of emphasis.Although both reviewers also focussed on our methods, the concerns that each reviewer highlighted differed. We will therefore address each specific point from each reviewer separately:Reviewer I: 'There is no behavioral data indicating that subjects were actually following the instruction and no measure of attending or shifting the direction of attention. The only behavioral data is the latency of moving the finger to the (assumed) attended location, but we do not really know if subjects covertly directed attention to the other field when a target was presented. ' In fact, as we wrote at the beginning of the results section, the behavioural data in Table 1 show that subjects were performing the task. Only two subjects accomplished fewer than 13 of the 14 nominal target detections in each location to be attended, and only two subjects gave more than a single false alarm to targets appearing at locations to be ignored. In any case, the few false alarms and missed targets in a minority of subjects could not have affected the fMRI averages and statistics, since the intervals surrounding misses and false alarms were excluded from the fMRI attention analysis. We have added a sentence to the results section in order to make this point clear.'The pictures and figures are sub optimal in quality. The quality of the color picture is poor, and the lines of the time course are hard to see. ' We have enlarged the time course figure so as to make its lines more clear. The resolution and contrast of the colour figure are those provided by our hardware, and we agree that laserprinting has negatively affected this figure. We have included the colour figure as a separate graphics file with this revised submission, and will provide photographic-quality hardcopy with the final submissio...

show abstract

Involvement of the human frontal eye field and multiple parietal areas in covert visual selection during conjunction search

Cited by 140 publications

References 46 publications

The role of the parietal cortex in visual feature binding

The role of the parietal cortex in visual feature binding

Near and far space: Understanding the neural mechanisms of spatial attention

Anatomic dissociation of selective and suppressive processes in visual attention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About