Carlo Umiltà

Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention

Stimuli presented in a non-attended location are responded to much slower than stimuli presented in an attended one. The hypotheses proposed to explain this effect make reference to covert movement of attention, hemifield inhibition, or attentional gradients. The experiment reported here was aimed at discriminating among these hypotheses. Subjects were cued to attend to one of four possible stimulus locations, which were arranged either horizontally or vertically, above, below, to the right or left of a fixation point. The instructions were to respond manually as fast as possible to the occurrence of a visual stimulus, regardless of whether it occurred in a cued or in a non-cued location. In 70% of the cued trials the stimulus was presented in the cued location and in 30% in one of the non-cued locations. In addition there were trials in which a non-directional cue instructed the subject to pay attention to all four locations. The results showed that the correct orienting of attention yielded a small but significant benefit; the incorrect orienting of attention yielded a large and significant cost; the cost tended to increase as a function of the distance between the attended location and the location that was actually stimulated; and an additional cost was incurred when the stimulated and attended locations were on opposite sides of the vertical or horizontal meridian. We concluded that neither the hypothesis postulating hemifield inhibition nor that postulating movement of attention with a constant time can explain the data. The hypothesis of an attention gradient and that of attention movements with a constant speed are tenable in principle, but they fail to account for the effect of crossing the horizontal and vertical meridians. A hypothesis is proposed that postulates a strict link between covert orienting of attention and programming explicit ocular movements. Attention is oriented to a given point when the oculomotor programme for moving the eyes to this point is ready to be executed. Attentional cost is the time required to erase one ocular program and prepare the next one.

Face Preference at Birth

Four experiments are reported that were aimed at elucidating some of the controversial issues concerning the preference for facelike patterns in newborns. The experiments were devised to contrast the original and the revised versions of the sensory hypothesis and the structural hypothesis as accounts of face preference in newborns. Experiments 1A and 1B supported the structural hypothesis by showing a visual preference for the stimulus for which components were located in the correct arrangement for a human face. Experiment 2 supported the sensory hypothesis by showing a visual preference for stimuli that were designed to have the optimal spatial frequency components for the newborn visual system. Experiment 3 showed that babies directed attention to a facelike pattern also when it was presented simultaneously with a nonfacelike stimulus with optimal spatial frequency for the newborn visual system.

Size of the attentional focus and efficiency of processing

By following Eriksen and St. James (1986) the experiments reported in this study focused upon three questions: (a) Can the spatial extent of the attentional focus be made to vary in response to precues? (b) As the area of the attentional focus increases, is there a decrease in processing efficiency for stimuli within the focus? (c) Is the boundary of the focus sharply demarked from the residual field or does it show a gradual dropoff? The results seem to provide answers to these questions: (a) the size of the attentional focus can be adjusted so that it covers areas of the visual field of different size; (b) there is a decrease in processing efficiency when the area of the attentional focus increases; and (c) there is a gradual dropoff in processing efficiency around the attentional focus.

Spatial Stimulus-Response Compatibility

Publisher Summary This chapter describes the different aspects of the spatial stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility. A stimulus dimension is relevant when the required response depends on the value of the stimulus in that dimension, whereas a stimulus dimension is irrelevant if values on it are uncorrelated with the required response. It is found that by combining dimensional overlap with dimensional relevancy, four types of S-R ensembles are obtained. The type-I ensemble occurs when there is no dimensional overlap in either the relevant or the irrelevant dimension. Ensemble type II is characterized by the presence of dimensional overlap in the relevant dimension. It satisfies the condition for obtaining S-R compatibility effects. Most of the studies with Type II ensembles use spatial stimulus and response dimensions. A light is presented in the left or in the right visual field and the subject is required to press either the left or the right key in response. Response time is faster when the imperative stimulus and the response are on the same side than when they are on opposite sides. It is found that in all studies that showed S-R compatibility effects with Type III ensembles, the irrelevant dimension was spatial. The correspondence in space is a particularly powerful way of obtaining an overlap between stimulus set and response set.

Splitting focal attention

The study was based on the inverse relationship between the effect of attention on reaction time (RT) and the size of the area over which focal attention is allocated. Independent occurrence of this in 2 locations in the opposite hemifields would be evidence of attention splitting. In Experiment 1, in which the 2 locations were denoted by empty boxes, there was an inverse relationship between size of the stimulated box and RT. Experiment 2 replicated the finding with different stimulation conditions. In Experiment 3, no relationship was found between RT and length of a cuing line. In Experiment 4, in which attention was manipulated by central cues, there was an effect of box size on valid and neutral trials but not invalid trials. Observers could split focal attention and manipulate simultaneously 2 independent attentional foci on objects located in the opposite hemifields.

The use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in cognitive neuroscience: A new synthesis of methodological issues

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has become a mainstay of cognitive neuroscience, thus facing new challenges due to its widespread application on behaviorally silent areas. In this review we will summarize the main technical and methodological considerations that are necessary when using TMS in cognitive neuroscience, based on a corpus of studies and technical improvements that has become available in most recent years. Although TMS has been applied only relatively recently on a large scale to the study of higher functions, a range of protocols that elucidate how this technique can be used to investigate a variety of issues is already available, such as single pulse, paired pulse, dual-site, repetitive and theta burst TMS. Finally, we will touch on recent promising approaches that provide powerful new insights about causal interactions among brain regions (i.e., TMS with other neuroimaging techniques) and will enable researchers to enhance the functional resolution of TMS (i.e., state-dependent TMS). We will end by briefly summarizing and discussing the implications of the newest safety guidelines.

A COMPUTATIONAL MODEL OF THE SIMON EFFECT

Even though stimulus location is task irrelevant, reaction times are faster when the location of the stimulus corresponds with the location of the response than when it does not. This phenomenon is called the Simon effect. Most accounts of the Simon effect are based on the assumption that it arises from a conflict between the spatial code of the stimulus and that of the response. In this paper a computational model of this hypothesis is presented. It provides a computationally explicit mechanism of the Simon effect. Consistent with human performance, the model provides reaction times that indicate both an advantage for the ipsilateral, corresponding response (i.e., facilitation) and a disadvantage of the contralateral, noncorresponding response (i.e., inhibition). In addition, the model accounts for the fact that the size for the effect depends on task difficulty.

The role of long-term-memory and short-term-memory links in the Simon effect

In Experiment 1, children performed a Simon task after a spatially compatible or incompatible task. Results showed a Simon effect after the spatially compatible task and a reversed Simon effect after the spatially incompatible task. In Experiments 2-5, an identical procedure was adopted with adult participants, who performed the Simon task immediately after, a day after, or a week after the spatial compatibility task. Experiment 6 established a baseline for the Simon effect. Results showed a Simon effect after the spatially compatible task and no Simon effect or a reversed Simon effect after the spatially incompatible task. A modified version of the computational model of M. Zorzi and C. Umiltà (1995) was used to compare possible accounts of the findings. The best account exploits 2 types of short-term-memory links between stimulus and response and their interaction with long-term-memory links.

Movements of attention in the three spatial dimensions and the meaning of "neutral" cues.

Six experiments were conducted to examine the effect of various attentional manipulations on reaction time to visual stimuli. The first three experiments compared the responses to stimuli presented in the depth (Experiment 1), along the horizontal (Experiment 2), and vertical (Experiment 3) meridians in a valid condition (stimulus presented in the cued position), an invalid condition (stimulus presented in the alternative position to the cued position) and a neutral condition (no information on stimulus position). The most interesting result was the demonstration that attention can be moved along the sagittal plane in the absence of vergence eye movements and that when attention is focused on a certain point, unattended points between this point and the observer (i.e. near points) are responded faster than unattended points beyond it (i.e. far points). In the frontal plane no asymmetry was found between the responses to unattended points above or below the fixation, whereas a certain, albeit non-constant, advantage was present for unattended stimuli on the right of the fixation point in respect to those on the left of it. The second series of experiments was similar to the first one, except that a new situation was introduced in which the fixation point was cued and stimuli could appear either in correspondence to it or in a peripheral position (invalid condition with attention at the fixation point). The results showed that in this new situation the responses to unattended stimuli are much longer than they are under neutral conditions, and as long as they are under conventional invalid condition. It is suggested that the so called neutral condition is a condition of diffuse attention and an attempt is made to explain it in terms of a premotor theory of attention.

The relationship between visuo-spatial attention and nonword reading in developmental dyslexia

Focused visuo-spatial attention was studied in 10 developmental dyslexic children with impaired nonword reading, 10 dyslexic children with intact nonword reading, and 12 normally reading children. Reaction times to lateralized visual stimuli in a cued detection task showed that attentional facilitation of the target at the cued location was symmetrical in the three groups. However, dyslexics with impaired nonword reading selectively showed a lack of attentional inhibition for targets at the uncued location in the right visual field. This result was replicated in a second group of 13 dyslexics with impaired nonword reading. Individual differences in the ability of right attentional inhibition across the entire sample of dyslexics accounted for 17% of unique variance in nonword reading accuracy after controlling for individual differences in age, IQ, and phonological skills. A possible explanation based on the role of spatial attention mechanisms in the graphemic parsing process is discussed. Our results suggest that focused visuo-spatial attention may be crucial for nonword decoding.