ERP investigation of transient attentional selection of single and multiple locations within touch

Article English OPEN
Forster, B. ; Gillmeister, H. (2010)
  • Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01147.x
  • Subject: BF
    acm: InformationSystems_MODELSANDPRINCIPLES | InformationSystems_INFORMATIONINTERFACESANDPRESENTATION(e.g.,HCI)

Mechanisms underlying pure tactile attentional selection were investigated. Tactile imperative stimuli were preceded by symbolic tactile cues directing attention to the left or right (directional cues), or to both hands (non-directional cues). Comparison of ERP waveforms on directional and non-directional cue trials showed that attentional modulations at N140 and P200 components reflect mainly enhancement of stimuli at the attended, while longer latency modulations reflect mainly suppression of processing of stimuli at the unattended location. This pattern of results differs from analogous studies involving other modalities suggesting that different mechanisms underlie pure tactile attention. Furthermore, ERPwaveforms on non-directional cue trialswere enhanced in comparison to directional cue trials at the P100 component and at longer latencies, indicating that tactile attentional mechanisms may differ when attending to one compared to multiple locations.
  • References (17)
    17 references, page 1 of 2

    Chica, A. B., Sanabria, D., Lupianez, J., & Spence, C. (2007). Comparing intramodal and crossmodal cuing in the endogenous orienting of spatial attention. Experimental Brain Research, 179, 353-364.

    Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Reviews in Neuroscience, 18, 193-222.

    Forster, B., & Eimer, M. (2005). Covert attention in touch: Behavioral and ERP evidence for costs and benefits. Psychophysiology, 42, 171-179.

    Forster, B., Sambo, C. F., & Pavone, E. F. (2009). ERP correlates of tactile spatial attention differ under intra- and intermodal conditions. Biological Psychology, 82, 227-233.

    Foxe, J. J., Simpson, G. V., Ahlfors, S. P., & Saron, C. D. (2005). Biasing the brain's attentional set: I. Cue driven deployments of intersensory selective attention. Experimental Brain Research, 166, 370-392.

    Galazky, I., Sch u┬Ętze, H., Noesselt, T., Hopf, J. M., Heinze, H. J., & Schoenfeld, M. A. (2009). Attention to somatosensory events is directly linked to the preparation for action. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 279, 93-98.

    Golob, E. J., Pratt, H., & Starr, A. (2002). Preparatory slow potentials and event-related potentials in an auditory cued attention task. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113, 1544-1557.

    Luck, S. J., Hillyard, S. A., Mouloua, M., Woldorff, M. G., Clark, V. P., & Hawkins, H. L. (1994). Effects of spatial cuing on luminance detectability: Psychophysical and electrophysiological evidence for early selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 887-904.

    Moran, J., & Desimone, R. (1985). Selective attention gates visual processing in extrastriate cortex. Science, 229, 782-784.

    O'Craven, K. M., Rosen, B. R., Kwong, K. K., Treisman, A., & Savoy, R. L. (1997). Voluntary attention modulates fMRI activity in human MT-MST. Neuron, 18, 591-598.

  • Metrics
    0
    views in OpenAIRE
    0
    views in local repository
    69
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    City Research Online - IRUS-UK 0 69
Share - Bookmark