Cargando…
Differences between endogenous attention to spatial locations and sensory modalities
Vibell et al. (J Cogn Neurosci 19:109–120, 2007) reported that endogenously attending to a sensory modality (vision or touch) modulated perceptual processing, in part, by the relative speeding-up of neural activation (i.e., as a result of prior entry). However, it was unclear whether it was the fine...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5603640/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28717820 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5030-4 |
_version_ | 1783264741506940928 |
---|---|
author | Vibell, J. Klinge, C. Zampini, M. Nobre, A. C. Spence, C. |
author_facet | Vibell, J. Klinge, C. Zampini, M. Nobre, A. C. Spence, C. |
author_sort | Vibell, J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Vibell et al. (J Cogn Neurosci 19:109–120, 2007) reported that endogenously attending to a sensory modality (vision or touch) modulated perceptual processing, in part, by the relative speeding-up of neural activation (i.e., as a result of prior entry). However, it was unclear whether it was the fine temporal discrimination required by the temporal-order judgment task that was used, or rather, the type of attentional modulation (spatial locations or sensory modalities) that was responsible for the shift in latencies that they observed. The present study used a similar experimental design to evaluate whether spatial attention would also yield similar latency effects suggestive of prior entry in the early visual P1 potentials. Intriguingly, while the results demonstrate similar neural latency shifts attributable to spatial attention, they started at a somewhat later stage than seen in Vibell et al.’s study. These differences are consistent with different neural mechanisms underlying attention to a specific sensory modality versus to a spatial location. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5603640 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56036402017-10-03 Differences between endogenous attention to spatial locations and sensory modalities Vibell, J. Klinge, C. Zampini, M. Nobre, A. C. Spence, C. Exp Brain Res Research Article Vibell et al. (J Cogn Neurosci 19:109–120, 2007) reported that endogenously attending to a sensory modality (vision or touch) modulated perceptual processing, in part, by the relative speeding-up of neural activation (i.e., as a result of prior entry). However, it was unclear whether it was the fine temporal discrimination required by the temporal-order judgment task that was used, or rather, the type of attentional modulation (spatial locations or sensory modalities) that was responsible for the shift in latencies that they observed. The present study used a similar experimental design to evaluate whether spatial attention would also yield similar latency effects suggestive of prior entry in the early visual P1 potentials. Intriguingly, while the results demonstrate similar neural latency shifts attributable to spatial attention, they started at a somewhat later stage than seen in Vibell et al.’s study. These differences are consistent with different neural mechanisms underlying attention to a specific sensory modality versus to a spatial location. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017-07-17 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5603640/ /pubmed/28717820 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5030-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Vibell, J. Klinge, C. Zampini, M. Nobre, A. C. Spence, C. Differences between endogenous attention to spatial locations and sensory modalities |
title | Differences between endogenous attention to spatial locations and sensory modalities |
title_full | Differences between endogenous attention to spatial locations and sensory modalities |
title_fullStr | Differences between endogenous attention to spatial locations and sensory modalities |
title_full_unstemmed | Differences between endogenous attention to spatial locations and sensory modalities |
title_short | Differences between endogenous attention to spatial locations and sensory modalities |
title_sort | differences between endogenous attention to spatial locations and sensory modalities |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5603640/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28717820 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5030-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vibellj differencesbetweenendogenousattentiontospatiallocationsandsensorymodalities AT klingec differencesbetweenendogenousattentiontospatiallocationsandsensorymodalities AT zampinim differencesbetweenendogenousattentiontospatiallocationsandsensorymodalities AT nobreac differencesbetweenendogenousattentiontospatiallocationsandsensorymodalities AT spencec differencesbetweenendogenousattentiontospatiallocationsandsensorymodalities |