Cortical Mechanisms Of Selective Attention To Spatial And Non Spatial Stimulus Features PDF Download

Elucidating the neural bases of selective attention continues to be a key challenge for psychologists, vision scientists and cognitive neuroscientists. It also represents an essential aim in translational efforts to measure, treat and prevent visual and attentional deficits, to improve teaching and learning, and to tailor automated situational awareness and alerting systems to human capabilities. Past human functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalographic (EEG) studies, as well as animal electrophysiological studies, have provided considerable information about the temporal properties, neuroanatomical substrates, and cellular- and synaptic-level mechanisms underlying attention. Despite substantial convergence in the mechanisms of attention revealed by these different approaches, there remain significant unresolved quandaries in the scientific literature. In particular, it is currently debated whether attention can influence neural activity during the initial feedforward wave of visual processing in human primary visual cortex (V1). FMRI in humans and cellular recordings in monkeys both suggest spatial attention can influence afferent sensory processing in V1. In sharp contrast, however, such effects of attention have not been reliably reported for human EEG recordings; the short-latency C1 component of the visually evoked event-related potential (ERP) that is generated in V1 is typically not affected by selective attention. Given the fMRI findings and the animal studies, what can explain this discrepancy? FMRI activations are tied to slow changes in cerebral hemodynamics that cannot distinguish between attention effects on incoming signals and activations due to longer-latency feedback activation of V1 from higher stages of visual processing—therefore, fMRI evidence is equivocal regarding whether attention-related V1 activations represent modulations of feedforward or feedback V1 activity. However, human and animal electrophysiology both provide the temporal resolution to distinguished between initial afferent volleys and feedback activity, making it difficult to reconcile the positive findings in monkeys and the negative findings in humans. The overarching hypothesis of this dissertation is that differences in the methods and paradigms between monkey and human studies could contribute to the differences in attention effects in V1. Specifically, monkey studies typically use continuous stimulation that is arguably more similar to natural vision than the punctate stimulation paradigms (e.g., trial-by-trial spatial cuing) often used in humans to study the effects of attention on sensory processing. Ongoing stimulation may trigger attention-related feedback signals from higher areas onto V1 that might not arise, or might not be observable, when simple, single, isolated stimuli are used. To investigate whether the nature of ongoing visual stimulation may account for some of the discrepancies reported in the literature, this dissertation examines human ERPs recorded during selective attention in six variations of a novel spatial attention task that builds on a paradigm successfully used to reveal V1 attention effects in nonhuman primates. Using this task, significant effects of spatial attention were observed on the amplitude of the C1 ERP in humans (Chapter 2). The addition of high-resolution eye gaze monitoring, however, demonstrated that small, systematic deviations of eye gaze in the direction of the cue hemifield likely contributed to the Chapter 2 finding, and when data from trials with deviations of eye gaze were eliminated, no attentional modulation on the C1 ERP remained (Chapter 3). Therefore, the main hypothesis that stimulus-triggered feedback attentional modulation of V1 signals should be observed as changes in C1 ERP amplitude, was not supported. Although the present findings do not explain the differences between spatial attention effects in monkey and human V1, they do provide additional support for the model that spatial attention effects observed using fMRI in humans is likely not the result of changes in input signal processing in V1, but instead reflects later recurrent activation of V1 that serves other computational purposes.