Oculomotor activity and visual spatial attention

Chelazzi, Leonardo; Biscaldi, Monica; Corbetta, Maurizio; Peru, Andrea; Tassinari, G.; Berlucchi, Giovanni

doi:10.1016/0166-4328(95)00134-4

Cited by 68 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Li and Lin 2002). Values of 0.15 cd/m 2 (Chelazzi et al 1995;Berlucchi et al 2000), possibly about the same as with a "black background" (Taylor and Klein 2000;Godijn and Theeuwes 2002), were also reported. A minority of studies used a light gray background, of 25 cd/m 2 (Sumner et al 2004(Sumner et al , 2006 similar to the one in our own experiments (29.5 cd/m 2 ).…”

Section: Evects Of Background Luminancementioning

confidence: 72%

Evidence for an attentional component in saccadic inhibition of return

Souto

Kerzel

2009

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After presentation of a peripheral cue, facilitation at the cued location is followed by inhibition of return (IOR). It has been recently proposed that IOR may originate at diVerent processing stages for manual and ocular responses, with manual IOR resulting from inhibited attentional orienting, and ocular IOR resulting form inhibited motor preparation. Contrary to this interpretation, we found an eVect of target contrast on saccadic IOR. The eVect of contrast decreased with increasing reaction times (RTs) for saccades, but not for manual key-press responses. This may have masked the eVect of contrast on IOR with saccades in previous studies (Hunt and Kingstone in J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29:1068-1074 because only mean RTs were considered. We also found that background luminance strongly inXuenced the eVects of gap and target contrast on IOR.

show abstract

Section: Evects Of Background Luminancementioning

confidence: 72%

Evidence for an attentional component in saccadic inhibition of return

Souto

Kerzel

2009

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The observed presaccadic responses in V1 may therefore reflect an efferent copy or a corollary discharge about movement planning in the oculomotor structures (24). However, the enhanced visual responses may also be related to the enhanced visual representation that occurs before saccading (25,26) and͞or represent a shift of attention preceding gaze shift (27)(28)(29). Even the enhanced visual signals may be related to phenomena such as visual masking or transsaccadic integration that have been hypothesized to eliminate retinal smear as a consequence of saccading and to produce a stable percept (30).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correspondence of presaccadic activity in the monkey primary visual cortex with saccadic eye movements

Supèr

Togt

Spekreijse

et al. 2004

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

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We continuously scan the visual world via rapid or saccadic eye movements. Such eye movements are guided by visual information, and thus the oculomotor structures that determine when and where to look need visual information to control the eye movements. To know whether visual areas contain activity that may contribute to the control of eye movements, we recorded neural responses in the visual cortex of monkeys engaged in a delayed figure-ground detection task and analyzed the activity during the period of oculomotor preparation. We show that Ϸ100 ms before the onset of visually and memory-guided saccades neural activity in V1 becomes stronger where the strongest presaccadic responses are found at the location of the saccade target. In addition, in memory-guided saccades the strength of presaccadic activity shows a correlation with the onset of the saccade. These findings indicate that the primary visual cortex contains saccade-related responses and participates in visually guided oculomotor behavior.V1 ͉ visuomotor integration ͉ oculomotor behavior ͉ neurophysiology ͉ vision

show abstract

“…These areas have been characterized as attentional ''control'' regions that bias responses in the sensory cortex (e.g., by increasing response gain) associated with the attended location or feature (see also Bestmann, Ruff, Blakemore, Driver, & Thilo, 2007;Liu, Larsson, & Carrasco, 2007;Serences & Boynton, 2007;McMains & Somers, 2004;Hopfinger et al, 2000;Kastner & Ungerleider, 2000;Brefczynski & DeYoe, 1999;Gandhi, Heeger, & Boynton, 1999;Luck, Chelazzi, Hillyard, & Desimone, 1997;Chelazzi et al, 1995); Mircrostimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation of FEF and the parietal cortex in monkeys and humans have shown direct modulation of activity in the retinotopic visual cortex, which results in increased perceptual sensitivity to stimuli University of California, Davis in corresponding locations of the visual field (e.g., Ruff et al, 2006Ruff et al, , 2008Armstrong, Fitzgerald, & Moore, 2006;Chambers, Stokes, Janko, & Mattingley, 2006;Mevorach, Humphreys, & Shalev, 2006;Muggleton et al, 2006;Silvanto, Lavie, & Walsh, 2006;Hung, Driver, & Walsh, 2005; O'Shea, Muggleton, Cowey, & Walsh, 2004;Moore & Armstrong, 2003;Grosbras & Paus, 2002). These studies suggest that frontal and parietal areas contain representations of attentional priority that selectively enhance processing in the sensory cortex of the related stimulus or feature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anterior Intraparietal Sulcus is Sensitive to Bottom–Up Attention Driven by Stimulus Salience

Geng

Mangun²

2009

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frontal eye fields (FEF) and anterior intraparietal sulcus (aIPS) are involved in the control of voluntary attention in humans, but their functional differences remain poorly understood. We examined the activity in these brain regions as a function of task-irrelevant changes in target and nontarget perceptual salience during a sustained spatial attention task. Both aIPS and FEF were engaged during selective attention. FEF, but not aIPS, was sensitive to the direction of spatial attention. Conversely, aIPS, but not FEF, was modulated by the relative perceptual salience of the target and nontarget stimuli. These results demonstrate separable roles for FEF and aIPS in attentional control with FEF more involved in goal-directed spatial attention and aIPS relatively more sensitive to bottom-up attentional influences driven by stimulus salience.

show abstract

Oculomotor activity and visual spatial attention

Cited by 68 publications

References 19 publications

Evidence for an attentional component in saccadic inhibition of return

Evidence for an attentional component in saccadic inhibition of return

Correspondence of presaccadic activity in the monkey primary visual cortex with saccadic eye movements

Anterior Intraparietal Sulcus is Sensitive to Bottom–Up Attention Driven by Stimulus Salience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About