Conditions of visual verbal extinction: does the ipsilesional stimulus have to be identified?

Six left-neglect patients were presented with four-letter words in the left and/or right hemifield, in different contextual conditions: unilateral, bilateral-x in which one word appears on one side and a string of "x" appears on the other side (the side of "x' was not predictable), and bilateral-word (presentation of one word in each hemifield). In Experiment 1, left extinction occurred even if the right stimulus was an easily discriminable string of "x." Experiment 2 showed that increasing the size of the left stimuli reduced extinction when a string of "x" was presented on the right hemifield. However, extinction was stronger with bilateral-word presentation. These results indicate the presence of an early component in the extinction phenomenon, i.e., a "magnetic" attraction toward the ipsilesional hemifield, but are also in favor of some additional deficit, at a later stage of information processing.     

Response Channel Activation and the Temporoparietal Junction

When we learn to make one motor response to one visual stimulus and a different motor response to another, representations of these stimulus–response associations must be maintained to efficiently transduce perception into action. When an irrelevant distractor is presented adjacent to a target stimulus, interference is observed when the two stimuli are associated with conflicting responses, presumably due to response channel activation by the incompatible information. We have explored the neural bases of these interference effects. In a previous study, patients with hemispatial neglect showed normal interference from contralesional flankers. In another study, patients with lesions of the lateral prefrontal cortex were found not to show interference from distractors presented in the contralesional hemifield. The current study provided a more anatomically detailed investigation of the effects of posterior association cortex lesions on flanker interference. Patients with chronic, unilateral lesions involving the temporoparietal junction (TPJ), two of whom had hemispatial neglect, were compared with patients with lesions of the posterior association cortex not involving the TPJ. All patients performed a color discrimination task at fixation while a congruent or incongruent colored flanker was briefly presented (16.7 ms) in the adjacent contralesional or ipsilesional hemifield. Patients with TPJ lesions showed no interference effects from the contralesional flankers. These results suggest that the TPJ, in combination with the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, is involved in transducing perception into action.     

The imbalance of oculomotor capture in unilateral visual neglect

Visual neglect has been associated with an imbalance in the level of activity in the saccadic system: activity in the contralesional field is suppressed, which makes target selection unlikely. We recorded eye movements of a patient with hemispatial neglect and a group of healthy participants during an oculomotor distractor paradigm. Results showed that the interfering effects of a distractor were very strong when presented in her ipsilesional visual field. However, when the distractor was presented in her contralesional field, there were no interfering effects when the target was presented in her ipsilesional field. These findings could not be explained by the presence of a visual field defect as revealed by the results of two hemianopic patients. Our results are in line with an imbalance in the level of activity in the saccadic system in visual neglect because visual elements presented in the contralesional field did not compete for saccadic selection.     

Perception of visual letter strings in a case of left neglect: Manipulation of the word form

Patients with lesions in the right parietal lobe neglect the left side of nonwords much more than the left side of words. This has been interpreted in terms of a more automatic process in reading words. The case of a patient with left visual neglect after a vascular right parietooccipital lesion is presented. He showed the phenomenon of a word superiority effect over nonword in reading at the beginning in a clinical test with static cards; 6 months later, after some recovery, the same phenomenon could be demonstrated only with tachistoscopic presentation, and it occurred even inside the good right visual hemifield. The word form of visually presented stimuli was manipulated, showing that there was a striking effect particularly when spacing the letters of words in a task that requires naming the stimulus. The patient's performance is interpreted in terms of an attentional deficit occurring at an early level of spatial information processing.     

Interlateral asymmetry in the time course of the effect of a peripheral prime stimulus

Evidence exists that both right and left hemisphere attentional mechanisms are mobilized when attention is directed to the right visual hemifield and only right hemisphere attentional mechanisms are mobilized when attention is directed to the left visual hemifield. This arrangement might lead to a rightward bias of automatic attention. The hypothesis was investigated by testing male volunteers, wherein a "location discrimination" reaction time task (Experiments 1 and 3) and a "location and shape discrimination" reaction time task (Experiments 2 and 4) were used. Unilateral (Experiments 1 and 2) and unilateral or bilateral (Experiments 3 and 4) peripheral visual prime stimuli were used to control attention. Reaction time to a small visual target stimulus in the same location or in the horizontally opposite location was evaluated. Stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) were 34, 50, 67, 83 and 100 ms. An important prime stimulus attentional effect was observed as early as 50 ms in the four experiments. In Experiments 2, 3 and 4, this effect was larger when the prime stimulus occurred in the right hemifield than when it occurred in the left hemifield for SOA 100 ms. In Experiment 4, when the prime stimulus occurred simultaneously in both hemifields, reaction time was faster for the right hemifield and for SOA 100 ms. These results indicate that automatic attention tends to favor the right side of space, particularly when identification of the target stimulus shape is required.     

The effects of bilateral presentations on lateralized lexical decision

We investigated how lateralized lexical decision is affected by the presence of distractors in the visual hemifield contralateral to the target. The study had three goals: first, to determine how the presence of a distractor (either a word or a pseudoword) affects visual field differences in the processing of the target; second, to identify the stage of the process in which the distractor is affecting the decision about the target; and third, to determine whether the interaction between the lexicality of the target and the lexicality of the distractor ("lexical redundancy effect") is due to facilitation or inhibition of lexical processing. Unilateral and bilateral trials were presented in separate blocks. Target stimuli were always underlined. Regarding our first goal, we found that bilateral presentations (a) increased the effect of visual hemifield of presentation (right visual field advantage) for words by slowing down the processing of word targets presented to the left visual field, and (b) produced an interaction between visual hemifield of presentation (VF) and target lexicality (TLex), which implies the use of different strategies by the two hemispheres in lexical processing. For our second goal of determining the processing stage that is affected by the distractor, we introduced a third condition in which targets were always accompanied by "perceptual" distractors consisting of sequences of the letter "x" (e.g., xxxx). Performance on these trials indicated that most of the interaction occurs during lexical access (after basic perceptual analysis but before response programming). Finally, a comparison between performance patterns on the trials containing perceptual and lexical distractors indicated that the lexical redundancy effect is mainly due to inhibition of word processing by pseudoword distractors.     

From reorienting of attention to biased competition: Evidence from hemifield effects

When a distractor was presented simultaneously with or directly following a target, it produced more interference when it was presented in the same visual hemifield as the target than when it was presented in the opposite visual field. This result is interpreted in terms of biased competition; there is more competition between stimuli when they are presented in the same visual field, rather than in opposite visual fields. However, when the distractor was presented 125 msec or more prior to the target, this pattern was reversed. In those cases, there was more distractor interference when target and distractor were presented in opposite visual fields. This can be explained by assuming that attention was captured by the distractor, and that there was an additional cost of reorienting to a location in the opposite visual field.     

Modulation of the Directional Attention Deficit in Visual Neglect by Hemispatial Factors

Using a visuo-spatial cuing paradigm, Posner and collaborators (Posner, Cohen, & Rafal, 1982; Posner, Walker, Friedrich, & Rafal, 1984) reported that subjects with a parietal lobe lesion have difficulty in disengaging their visual attention from an invalidly precued location in the ipsilesional hemifield when the target they have to respond to is presented in the contralesional field. Later, these authors (Posner, Walker, Friedrich, & Rafal, 1987) proposed that this disengagement deficit is one involving spatial shifts of attention in a contralesional direction, irrespective of the visual hemifield in which the target is presented. This proposal of a directional disengagement deficit along the horizontal axis, present in either hemifield, contrasts with a report by Baynes, Holtzman, & Volpe (1986) showing, in right parietal subjects, a disengagement deficit for shifts of attention along the vertical axis that is only manifest in the contralesional hemifield. In the present report, we assessed the disengagement deficit of a neglect subject along the horizontal and vertical axes. Results show a disengagement deficit restricted to shifts of attention in the contralesional direction (horizontal axis), which is significant only in the contralesional visual hemifield. However, there is a clear trend for a directional disengagement deficit in the ipsilateral field. These observations indicate that the attention deficit present in neglect is directional and is modulated either by hemispatial factors or by the lateral target location in the visual field. On the basis of the present results, it is proposed that the deficit of parietal subjects may best be conceptualized as one of attentional capture for stimuli located on the contralesional side of the current focus of attention rather than one of disengagement.     

Perceptual grouping operates independently of attentional selection: Evidence from hemispatial neglect

To what extent can human observers process visual information that is not currently the focus of attention? We evaluated the extent to which unattended visual information (i.e., that which appears on the neglected side of space in individuals with hemispatial neglect) is perceptually organized and influences the perceptual processing of information on the attended side. To examine this, patients (and matched controls) judged whether successive, complex checkerboard stimuli (targets), presented entirely to their intact side of space, were the same or different. Concurrent with this demanding task, irrelevant distractor elements appeared on the unattended side and either changed or retained their perceptual grouping on successive displays, independently of changes in the ipsilesional task-relevant target. Changes in the grouping of the unattended task-irrelevant distractor elements produced congruency effects on the attended target-change judgment to the same extent in the neglect patients as in the control participants, and this was true even in those patients with severe attentional deficits. These results suggest that some perceptual processes, such as grouping, can operate in the absence of attention.     

大脑两半球与整体和局部性质的选择性加工

研究大脑两半球在加工整体和局部性质中的优势以及两半球能否同时分别选择两个复合刺激的整体和局部性质。实验中把一个复合字母随机呈现在左视野或右视野,或者把两个复合字母同时分别呈现在左视野和右视野。实验一发现,在单侧呈现条件下,被试检测左右视野的整体或局部靶目标的反应时没有显著差别,但在双侧同时呈现条件下,检测右视野局部靶目标比检测左视野局部靶目标时的反应时短。实验二要求被试检测同时呈现在左右视野的整体或局部靶目标,发现当两个视野的靶目标处于同一水平时(整体或局部)反应时较短,两个视野的靶目标处于不同水平时(一侧处于整体水平而另一侧处于局部水平)反应时较长。这些结果提示,当两个复合刺激同时呈现在左右视野时,大脑左半球在选择性加工局部性质时具有优势;左右两半球更容易选择两个复合刺激同一个水平的性质,分别选择两个复合刺激不同水平的性质比较困难。     

The influence of synchronous audiovisual distractors on audiovisual temporal order judgments

Participants made unspeeded temporal order judgments (TOJs) regarding which occurred first, anauditory or a visual target stimulus, when they were presented at a variety of different stimulus onset asynchronies. The target stimuli were presented either in isolation or positioned randomly among a stream of three synchronous audiovisual distractors. The largest just noticeable differences were reported when the targets were presented in the middle of the distractor stream. When the targets were presented at the beginning of the stream, performance was no worse than when the audiovisual targets were presented in isolation. Subsequent experiments revealed that performance improved somewhat when the position of the target was fixed or when the target was made physically distinctive from the distractors. These results show that audiovisual TOJs are impaired by the presence of audiovisual distractors and that this cost can be ameliorated by directing attention to the appropriate temporal position within the stimulus stream.     

Drawing perseveration in neglect: Effects of target density

In cancellation tasks, patients with unilateral spatial neglect typically fail to mark targets within the side of the sheet contralateral to the side of the lesion (contralesional). Moreover, they can show a perseverative behaviour, which consists in repeatedly cancelling stimuli, mainly in the side of the display ipsilateral to the side of the lesion (ipsilesional). We investigated in 13 right‐brain‐damaged patients with left spatial neglect and perseverative behaviour whether and how different densities of horizontal targets modulated omission and perseverative errors. We found that the density of targets modulated the patients’ distribution of neglect (area of omission), but not its extent, as indexed by the percentage of omissions. Specifically, the area of omissions tightened when target density increased leftwards. On the other hand, target density did not affect the distribution of perseverative behaviour (area of perseveration), as well as its extent, as indexed by the percentage of perseverations. Correlation analyses showed that both the extent and the distribution of omissions were positively correlated to clinical measures of spatial neglect. Conversely, perseverations did not show such a correlation. These findings support the view that two different pathological mechanisms might be involved in left spatial neglect and in ipsilesional perseverative behaviour.     

Retinal location and its effect on the processing of target and distractor information

Two experiments were conducted to study the perceptual facilitation and inhibition that occurs between foveal and parafoveal or peripheral regions of the eye. Experiment 1 used a Stroop task to compare color detection latencies of foveal and parafoveal targets. The target and distractor components of the Stroop stimuli were separated and presented with varied stimulus onset asynchronies. Experiment 2 used a Stroop-like task to replicate and extend the findings into the visual periphery. Subjects were found to process foveally presented distractor information while attending to targets presented in parafoveal or peripheral regions of the eye. Distractor information that was incompatible was suppressed while compatible information was used to facilitate target processing. When the targets were presented foveally along with the distractor information, subjects appeared to automatically process the distractor information. The findings are discussed within the framework of past studies that presented subjects with competing tasks across retinal location. The implications of these findings to a two-process theory of attention are also considered.     

Extinction-like effects in normals: independence of localization and response selection

An extinction-like effect in normal subjects was previously elicited when a low-salience target in the left was simultaneously presented with a highly salient distractor in the right visual hemifield, but not vice versa (Pollmann, 1996). We investigated in four experiments whether this extinction-like effect depends on (a) explicit localization and (b) response competition. It was found that the extinction-like effect could be replicated in the absence of both. In contradistinction to our previous results, low-salience distractors had no effect on pop-out target search. This showed that explicit spatial localization demands lead to low-salience distractor interference on pop-out search.     

Identity and semantic negative priming in rapid serial visual presentation streams

In selective attention tasks, the efficiency of processing concurrently presented target and distractor stimuli in a given display is often influenced by the relationship these stimuli have with those in the previous display. When a to-be-attended target on a current trial (the probe trial) matches the ignored, non-target distractor on a previous trial (the prime trial), a response to the target is typically delayed compared with when the two stimuli are not associated. This negative priming (NP) phenomenon has been observed in numerous studies with traditional NP tasks presenting the target and distractor simultaneously in both the prime and probe trial couplets. Here, however, in four experiments using a mixture of stimulus types (letters, digits, English number words, and logographic Chinese number words), target and distractor stimuli were temporally separated in two rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) streams instead of concurrently presented. The findings provide a conceptual replication and substantial extension of a recent study by Wong (Plos One, 7, e37023, 2012), and suggest that active suppression of irrelevant distracting information is a more ubiquitous form of cognitive control than previously thought.     

Location-specific versus hemisphere-specific adaptation of processing selectivity

Current theories of cognitive control assume that processing selectivity is adjusted according to the utility of processing task-irrelevant stimulus features. Consistently, interference evoked by flanker stimuli is reduced when the proportion of incompatible trials—in which flankers are associated with an incorrect response—is increased. Consistent with the idea that the cerebral hemispheres select processing strategies independently of each other, Corballis and Gratton (2003) demonstrated that flanker interference for stimuli presented in either the left or right visual hemifield is affected by the ratio of compatible and incompatible target-flanker pairings presented in the same—but not in the other—hemifield. Presenting stimuli at four different locations, we demonstrated independent effects of the ratio of compatible and incompatible trials for stimulus locations in different hemifields as well as for stimulus locations within the same hemifield. Independent selectivity adjustment regarding the left and right visual hemifields thus appears to be a special case of a larger class of location-specific adaptation effects and might not be informative regarding hemisphere-specific processing.     

Temporal order judgment in dyslexia

Hari et al. (Brain 174:1373-1380, 2001) demonstrated that dyslexics showed a sluggish attention capture in both visual hemifields. Additionally, they indicated a left-right asymmetry in the perception of temporal order of two visual stimuli (they performed worse than controls only if the stimulus in the left hemifield preceded that in right hemifield). They suggested that a left-sided minineglect is associated with dyslexia. We hypothesized that if a kind of neglect syndrome is responsible for the asymmetry they found, dyslexics should not only show a left-right asymmetry in temporal order judgment of two laterally presented stimuli but also perform equally well as controls when the stimuli are vertically aligned. Our results indicated that in both tasks dyslexics performed generally worse than normal readers. The results suggest that dyslexics suffer from a more general problem of order discrimination.     

On the inability to ignore touch when responding to vision in the crossmodal congruency task

We investigated the extent to which people can selectively ignore distracting vibrotactile information when performing a visual task. In Experiment 1, participants made speeded elevation discrimination responses (up vs. down) to a series of visual targets presented from one of two eccentricities on either side of central fixation, while simultaneously trying to ignore task-irrelevant vibrotactile distractors presented independently to the finger (up) vs. thumb (down) of either hand. Participants responded significantly more slowly, and somewhat less accurately, when the elevation of the vibrotactile distractor was incongruent with that of the visual target than when they were presented from the same (i.e., congruent) elevation. This crossmodal congruency effect was significantly larger when the visual and tactile stimuli appeared on the same side of space than when they appeared on different sides, although the relative eccentricity of the two stimuli within the hemifield (i.e., same vs. different) had little effect on performance. In Experiment 2, participants who crossed their hands over the midline showed a very different pattern of crossmodal congruency effects to participants who adopted an uncrossed hands posture. Our results suggest that both the relative external location and the initial hemispheric projection of the target and distractor stimuli contribute jointly to determining the magnitude of the crossmodal congruency effect when participants have to respond to vision and ignore touch.     

Priming and intrusion errors in RSVP streams with two response dimensions

Loach and Marí-Beffa (Vis Cogn, 10:513-526, 2003) observed that a distractor stimulus, presented immediately after a behaviorally relevant target stimulus, negatively primed a related probe stimulus indicating that the distractor had been inhibited. They argued that "post-target inhibition" may be a mechanism for preventing interference from temporally proximal stimuli; interference that could potentially result in a binding/intrusion error. In order to test this hypothesis, the authors carried out two rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) experiments in which participants had to report either the identity (Experiment 1) or color (Experiment 2) of a target letter surrounded by distractor letters. In Experiment 1, a close relationship between priming and errors was observed. When a distractor stimulus showed evidence of being inhibited the participant was less likely to commit a binding error. The opposite was true when a distractor stimulus showed evidence of being facilitated. The results of Experiment 2 showed limited evidence of the same relationship.     

Task difficulty and visual similarity increase a distractor's effects on random shapes

Recognition of random shapes followed by a visual distractor is altered by the type of distractor and whether the distractor needs to be attended. Three experiments tested which characteristics modify a visual distractor's effect on random target shapes presented for 75 to 150 msec. Exp. 1 showed that increasing the number of digits to be remembered (1, 3, or 8) increased the effectiveness of digits as distractors. Exeir effect as visual distractors for random target shapes. Random shapes were highly effective as distractors, while pictures of faces or comples colored pictures had a relatively small effect. In Exp. 3 decreasing the presentation time for novel visual distractors decreased recognition of the distractors but not of random target shapes. However, adding a three-digit distractor after the novel visual distractor did decrease recognition of target shapes. Exps. 2 and 3 showed that the order of the recognition tests of the target and distracting stimuli altered target recognition if and only if subjects did know which was to be reported first. These experiments indicate that the effect of a visual distractor depends on both the extent to which it is allotted attention and its visual similarity to the target stimulus.