Spotting from The Rightmost Deep: A Temporal Field Advantage in A Behavioural Task of Attention And Filtering

George A. Michael; Raphaël Mizzi; Cyril Couffe; Germán Gálvez-García; Élodie Labeye; George A. Michael; Raphaël Mizzi; Cyril Couffe; Germán Gálvez-García; Élodie Labeye

doi:10.3934/Neuroscience.2016.1.56

AIMS Neuroscience

2016, Volume 3, Issue 1: 56-66. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2016.1.56

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Recurring Topics

Spotting from The Rightmost Deep: A Temporal Field Advantage in A Behavioural Task of Attention And Filtering

1.
Département de Psychologie Cognitive & Neuropsychologie, Institut de Psychologie, Laboratoire d’Étude des Mécanismes Cognitifs, Université Lyon 2, Lyon, France
2.
Department of Psychology, Universidad de la Frontera, Chile

Received: 18 February 2016 Accepted: 29 March 2016 Published: 31 March 2016

During the past decades, animal and human physiological studies have suggested that subcortical structures that are part of the extrageniculate pathways have an important role to play in the attentive selection of targets and the filtering of distractors. However, not much has been done to investigate the filtering of distractors in purely behavioural experiments through cues that might reveal extrageniculate functions, such as the asymmetry in performance between the nasal and the temporal visual fields. Here, under monocular conditions, participants viewed laterally and tachistoscopically presented sets of visual stimuli and were required to decide whether a target was present in the set or not. The manipulation of attention demands was achieved by varying the degree of spatial organization of the stimuli. A temporal field advantage in detection accuracy was found, and was observed only for disorganised sets of stimuli, that is, when demands on attention were greater. Furthermore, this pattern was found only for stimuli projected to the right hemisphere. The results suggest that the extrageniculate pathways of the right hemisphere in humans are involved in filtering out distractors. They are discussed in light of findings and theories about extrageniculate mediation of selective attention.
- visual selective attention,
- filtering,
- nasal-temporal asymmetry,
- behaviour,
- right hemisphere,
- extrageniculate.
Citation: George A. Michael, Raphaël Mizzi, Cyril Couffe, Germán Gálvez-García, Élodie Labeye. Spotting from The Rightmost Deep: A Temporal Field Advantage in A Behavioural Task of Attention And Filtering[J]. AIMS Neuroscience, 2016, 3(1): 56-66. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2016.1.56

Related Papers:

Abstract

During the past decades, animal and human physiological studies have suggested that subcortical structures that are part of the extrageniculate pathways have an important role to play in the attentive selection of targets and the filtering of distractors. However, not much has been done to investigate the filtering of distractors in purely behavioural experiments through cues that might reveal extrageniculate functions, such as the asymmetry in performance between the nasal and the temporal visual fields. Here, under monocular conditions, participants viewed laterally and tachistoscopically presented sets of visual stimuli and were required to decide whether a target was present in the set or not. The manipulation of attention demands was achieved by varying the degree of spatial organization of the stimuli. A temporal field advantage in detection accuracy was found, and was observed only for disorganised sets of stimuli, that is, when demands on attention were greater. Furthermore, this pattern was found only for stimuli projected to the right hemisphere. The results suggest that the extrageniculate pathways of the right hemisphere in humans are involved in filtering out distractors. They are discussed in light of findings and theories about extrageniculate mediation of selective attention.

References

[1]	Donnelly N, Humphreys GW, Riddoch MJ (1991) Parallel computation of primitive shape descriptions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 17: 561-570. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.17.2.561
[2]	Krauzlis RJ, Lovejoy LP, Zenon A (2013) Superior Colliculus and Visual Spatial Attention. Annu Rev Neurosci 36. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-062012-170249.
[3]	Wurtz RH, McAlonan K, Cavanaugh J, et al. (2011) Thalamic pathways for active vision. Trends Cogn Sci 15: 177-184. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.02.004.
[4]	Fischer J, Whitney D (2012) Attention gates visual coding in the human pulvinar. Nat Commun 3: 1051. doi:10.1038/ncomms2054.
[5]	Strumpf H, Mangun GR, Boehler CN, et al. (2013) The role of the pulvinar in distractor processing and visual search. Hum Brain Mapp 34: 1115-1132. doi:10.1002/hbm.21496. doi: 10.1002/hbm.21496
[6]	Michael GA, Desmedt S (2004) The human pulvinar and attentional processing of visual distractors. Neurosci Lett 362: 176-181. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2004.01.062. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2004.01.062
[7]	Snow JC, Allen HA, Rafal RD, et al. (2009) Impaired attentional selection following lesions to human pulvinar: Evidence for homology between human and monkey. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 4054-4059. doi:10.1073/pnas.0810086106.
[8]	Lyon DC, Nassi JJ, Callaway EM (2010) A Disynaptic Relay from Superior Colliculus to Dorsal Stream Visual Cortex in Macaque Monkey. Neuron 65: 270-279. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.01.003. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.01.003
[9]	Goldberg ME, Wurtz RH (1972) Activity of superior colliculus in behaving monkey. I. Visual receptive fields of single neurons. J Neurophysiol 35: 542-559.
[10]	Itaya SK, Van Hoesen GW (1983) Retinal projections to the inferior and medial pulvinar nuclei in the old-world monkey. Brain Res 269: 223-230. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(83)90131-2. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(83)90131-2
[11]	Wilson ME, Toyne MJ (1970) Retino-tectal and cortico-tectal projections inMacaca mulatta. Brain Res 24: 395-406. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(70)90181-2. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(70)90181-2
[12]	Cotton PL, Smith AT (2007) Contralateral Visual Hemifield Representations in the Human Pulvinar Nucleus. J Neurophysiol 98: 1600-1609. doi:10.1152/jn.00419.2007. doi: 10.1152/jn.00419.2007
[13]	Schneider KA, Kastner S (2005) Visual Responses of the Human Superior Colliculus: A High-Resolution Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study. J Neurophysiol 94: 2491-2503. doi:10.1152/jn.00288.2005. doi: 10.1152/jn.00288.2005
[14]	Jóhannesson ÓI, Kristjánsson Á (2013) Violating the main sequence: asymmetries in saccadic peak velocities for saccades into the temporal versus nasal hemifields. Exp Brain Res 227: 101-110. doi:10.1007/s00221-013-3490-8. doi: 10.1007/s00221-013-3490-8
[15]	Rafal R, Henik A, Smith J (1991) Extrageniculate Contributions to Reflex Visual Orienting in Normal Humans: A Temporal Hemifield Advantage. J Cogn Neurosci 3: 322–328. doi:10.1162/jocn.1991.3.4.322. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1991.3.4.322
[16]	Zackon DH, Casson EJ, Zafar A, et al. (1999) The temporal order judgment paradigm: subcorticalattentional contribution under exogenous and endogenouscueing conditions. Neuropsychologia 37: 511-520. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00134-1. doi: 10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00134-1
[17]	Michael GA, Ojéda N (2005) Visual field asymmetries in selective attention: Evidence from a modified search paradigm. Neurosci Lett 388: 65-70. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2005.06.027. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2005.06.027
[18]	Michael GA, Gálvez-García G (2011) Salience-based progression of visual attention. Behav Brain Res 224: 87-99. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.05.024. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2011.05.024
[19]	Rogers LJ, Vallortigara G, Andrew RJ (2013) Divided brains: The biology and behavior of brain asymmetries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[20]	LaBerge D (1990) Thalamic and Cortical Mechanisms of Attention Suggested by Recent Positron Emission Tomographic Experiments. J Cogn Neurosci 2: 358-372. doi:10.1162/jocn.1990.2.4.358. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1990.2.4.358
[21]	Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9: 97-113. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4
[22]	Christman S (1989) Perceptual characteristics in visual laterality research. Brain Cogn 11: 238-257.
[23]	Williams C, Azzopardi P, Cowey A (1995) Nasal and temporal retinal ganglion cells projecting to the midbrain: Implications for “blindsight.” Neuroscience 65: 577-586. doi:10.1016/0306-4522(94)00489-R. doi: 10.1016/0306-4522(94)00489-R
[24]	Sylvester R, Josephs O, Driver J, et al. (2007) Visual fMRI Responses in Human Superior Colliculus Show a Temporal–Nasal Asymmetry That Is Absent in Lateral Geniculate and Visual Cortex. J Neurophysiol 97: 1495-1502. doi:10.1152/jn.00835.2006.
[25]	Sapir A, Soroker N, Berger A, et al. (1992) Inhibition of return in spatial attention: direct evidence for collicular generation. Nat Neurosci 2: 1053-1054. doi:10.1038/15977.
[26]	Sapir A, Rafal R, Henik A (2002) Attending to the thalamus: inhibition of return and nasal-temporal asymmetry in the pulvinar. Neuroreport 13: 693-697. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200204160-00031
[27]	Mesulam MM (1999) Spatial attention and neglect: parietal, frontal and cingulate contributions to the mental representation and attentional targeting of salient extrapersonal events. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 354: 1325-1346. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1999.0482
[28]	Karnath H-O, Himmelbach M, Rorden C (2002) The subcortical anatomy of human spatial neglect: putamen, caudate nucleus and pulvinar. Brain 125: 350-360. doi: 10.1093/brain/awf032

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)