We review evidence for partially segregated networks of brain areas that carry out different attentional functions. One system, which includes parts of the intraparietal cortex and superior frontal cortex, is involved in preparing and applying goal-directed (top-down) selection for stimuli and responses. This system is also modulated by the detection of stimuli. The other system, which includes the temporoparietal cortex and inferior frontal cortex, and is largely lateralized to the right hemisphere, is not involved in top-down selection. Instead, this system is specialized for the detection of behaviourally relevant stimuli, particularly when they are salient or unexpected. This ventral frontoparietal network works as a 'circuit breaker' for the dorsal system, directing attention to salient events. Both attentional systems interact during normal vision, and both are disrupted in unilateral spatial neglect.

Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain

▪ Abstract The prefrontal cortex has long been suspected to play an important role in cognitive control, in the ability to orchestrate thought and action in accordance with internal goals. Its neural basis, however, has remained a mystery. Here, we propose that cognitive control stems from the active maintenance of patterns of activity in the prefrontal cortex that represent goals and the means to achieve them. They provide bias signals to other brain structures whose net effect is to guide the flow of activity along neural pathways that establish the proper mappings between inputs, internal states, and outputs needed to perform a given task. We review neurophysiological, neurobiological, neuroimaging, and computational studies that support this theory and discuss its implications as well as further issues to be addressed

/pdf/an-integrative-theory-of-prefrontal-cortex-function-2j9unprn5f.pdf

An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function

Bartlett viewed thinking as a high level skill exhibiting ballistic properties that he called its “point of no return”. This paper explores one aspect of cognition through the use of a simple model...

/pdf/orienting-of-attention-2bi7r8jak3.pdf

Orienting of attention

Attention and Effort

The two basic phenomena that define the problem of visual attention can be illustrated in a simple example. Consider the arrays shown in each panel of Figure 1. In a typical experiment, before the arrays were presented, subjects would be asked to report letters appearing in one color (targets, here black letters), and to disregard letters in the other color (nontargets, here white letters). The array would then be briefly flashed, and the subjects, without any opportunity for eye movements, would give their report. The display mimics our. usual cluttered visual environment: It contains one or more objects that are relevant to current behavior, along with others that are irrelevant. The first basic phenomenon is limited capacity for processing information. At any given time, only a small amount of the information available on the retina can be processed and used in the control of behavior. Subjectively, giving attention to any one target leaves less available for others. In Figure 1, the probability of reporting the target letter N is much lower with two accompa­ nying targets (Figure la) than with none (Figure Ib). The second basic phenomenon is selectivity-the ability to filter out un­ wanted information. Subjectively, one is aware of attended stimuli and largely unaware of unattended ones. Correspondingly, accuracy in identifying an attended stimulus may be independent of the number of nontargets in a display (Figure la vs Ie) (see Bundesen 1990, Duncan 1980).

Neural Mechanisms of Selective Visual Attention

Detection of a visual signal requires information to reach a system capable of eliciting arbitrary responses required by the experimenter. Detection latencies are reduced when subjects receive a cue that indicates where in the visual field the signal will occur. This shift in efficiency appears to be due to an alignment (orienting) of the central attentional system with the pathways to be activated by the visual input. It would also be possible to describe these results as being due to a reduced criterion at the expected target position. However, this description ignores important constraints about the way in which expectancy improves performance. First, when subjects are cued on each trial, they show stronger expectancy effects than when a probable position is held constant for a block, indicating the active nature of the expectancy. Second, while information on spatial position improves performance, information on the form of the stimulus does not. Third, expectancy may lead to improvements in latency without a reduction in accuracy. Fourth, there appears to be little ability to lower the criterion at two positions that are not spatially contiguous. A framework involving the employment of a limited-capacity attentional mechanism seems to capture these constraints better than the more general language of criterion setting. Using this framework, we find that attention shifts are not closely related to the saccadic eye movement system. For luminance detection the retina appears to be equipotential with respect to attention shifts, since costs to unexpected stimuli are similar whether foveal or peripheral. These results appear to provide an important model system for the study of the relationship between attention and the structure of the visual system.

/pdf/attention-and-the-detection-of-signals-531wsuuxr5.pdf

Attention and the detection of signals.

Attention and cognitive control.

Selection, inspection, and naming in visual search.

Both orthographic regularity and visual familiarity have been implicated as contributors to the efficiency of processing visually presented words. Our studies sought to determine which of the internal codes representing words in the nervous system are facilitated by these two variables. To do this, sets of letter strings in which orthography and familiarity were factorially combined were used as the basis for physical, phonetic, semantic, and lexical judgments. The data indicated consistent effects of orthography on the activation of all codes. These effects were seen in same-different matching and in judgments of stimulus orientation, which are based on visual codes; in judgments of pronounceability based on phonetic codes; in judgments of meaningfulness based on semantic codes; and in lexical decisions, which are based on phonetic and semantic codes together. Familiarity, on the other hand, had a clear influence on the activation of semantic codes and to a lesser extent affected phonetic codes. Despite previous positive results found in matching letter strings, however, no influence of familiarity occurred in judgments based on visual codes once evidence for criterion shifting was eliminated. Our negative results included direct tests of facilitation in matching acronyms (e.g., FBI) and in matching both regular and irregular strings familiarized by specific training. It now appears that earlier findings of visual familiarity effects may be attributed to response biases resulting from the activation of higher level codes sensitive to familiarity, and to the use of small sets of training stimuli that allowed subjects to induce orthographic-like rules. The results obtained so far with our methods seem to reconcile an inconsistent literature by showing that speeded decisions based on visual codes are most strongly influenced by rule-governed processing mechanisms sensitive to orthographic structure, whereas decisions based on phonetic and semantic codes are affected about equally by rule-governed mechanisms and by stimulus-specific mechanisms sensitive to familiarity. This conclusion may lead to changes in notions of how effective various kinds of visual training are likely to be at different stages in the acquisition of reading skill.

Orthography and familiarity effects in word processing.

/pdf/operant-conditioning-of-vasoconstriction-4vn0epqhzm.pdf

Charles R. R. Snyder

Papers

Attention and the detection of signals.

Attention and cognitive control.

Selection, inspection, and naming in visual search.

Orthography and familiarity effects in word processing.

Operant conditioning of vasoconstriction