 |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
The Journal of Neuroscience, November 24, 2004, 24(47):10702-10706; doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2939-04.2004
Previous Article | Next Article
BRIEF COMMUNICATION
Control of Attention Shifts between Vision and Audition in Human Cortex
Sarah Shomstein andSteven Yantis Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Selective attention contributes to perceptual efficiency by modulating cortical activity according to task demands. Visual attention is controlled by activity in posterior parietal and superior frontal cortices, but little is known about the neural basis of attentional control within and between other sensory modalities. We examined human brain activity during attention shifts between vision and audition. Attention shifts from vision to audition caused increased activity in auditory cortex and decreased activity in visual cortex and vice versa, reflecting the effects of attention on sensory representations. Posterior parietal and superior prefrontal cortices exhibited transient increases in activity that were time locked to the initiation of voluntary attention shifts between vision and audition. These findings reveal that the attentional control functions of posterior parietal and superior prefrontal cortices are not limited to the visual domain but also include the control of crossmodal shifts of attention.
Key words: crossmodal attention; attentional control; visual attention; auditory attention; posterior parietal cortex; PPC; superior parietal lobule; SPL; functional magnetic resonance imaging; fMRI
Introduction
Attention is the cognitive mechanism by which salient or behaviorally relevant sensory information is selected for perception and awareness (Desimone and Duncan, 1995). Attended visual events are perceived more rapidly and accurately than ignored ones (Posner et al., 1980
Although the role of the frontoparietal network in controlling visual selective attention is well established, its role in controlling shifts of attention between and within other sensory modalities is less well understood. Most relevant studies have only indirectly suggested that the functions of the parietal lobe might include goal-directed control of attention across modalities (Teder-Salejarvi et al., 1999
We examined cortical activity in human observers during shifts of attention between vision and audition using rapid event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Observers viewed a visual display containing five rapid serial visual presentation streams of letters appearing in the center of a computer screen; at the same time, they listened via headphones to three streams of letters spoken at the same rate as the visual stream (see Fig. 1). The central visual stream or the central (binaural) auditory stream contained target digits to be detected and identified; distractor streams of letters were continuously present in both modalities. Before each run, an auditory instruction directed attention to either the auditory or the visual stream. The subjects' task was to detect digits in the attended stream. Depending on the identity of the digit, subjects were to either shift their attention from one modality to another or maintain their attention within the currently attended modality. This design permits the measurement of the neural events that are time locked to the act of shifting attention, unconfounded by sensory responses to a distinct attention cue. The nearby distractors maximize sensory competition and, hence, the opportunity for attention modulation (Desimone and Duncan, 1995
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Figure 1. Attention shift task. The visual display contained a target stream of letters at fixation and four surrounding distractor streams. A binaural target stream of spoken letters was accompanied by a monaural distracting stream in each ear. Either vision or audition was attended at the beginning of a run. Participants pressed a button whenever a digit was detected. If the digit was 2, they were to maintain attention on the currently attended modality; if it was 4, they were to switch attention to the other modality.
Materials and Methods
Subjects. Eleven neurologically healthy young adults (19-35 years of age; seven women; mean, 24.8) were recruited from the Johns Hopkins University community. Informed consent was obtained from each subject in accordance with the human subjects research protocol approved by the Institutional Review Board at Johns Hopkins University.Stimuli. Auditory stimuli consisted of 16 letters recorded digitally using the Computerized Speech Lab software (CSL; Kay Elementics, Lincoln Park, NJ). One female and one male talker, both native English speakers, produced two digits and 16 letters (2, 4, A, C, F, G, H, J, K, M, N, P, R, T, U, V, X, and Y). The utterances were edited to be exactly 240 msec in duration with an additional 10 msec of silence added at the end of each utterance, yielding a total duration of 250 msec for each utterance. The male voice was presented binaurally and served as the central auditory target stream. Two different monaural sequences of letters spoken by the female voice were presented to the left and right ears, respectively. The amplitude of the auditory distractor streams were each
70% of the amplitude of the target stream; all streams were presented well above threshold.
The visual stimuli were white characters (the same set of letters and digits as that used for the auditory stimuli) rendered on a black background. Each letter subtended
Procedure. At the beginning of each run, subjects heard the word "audition" or "vision," which instructed them to begin the run by attending to the auditory or visual target stream, respectively (Fig. 1). Subjects pressed a button held in their dominant hand whenever they detected the digits 2 or 4 within the attended stream. For one-half of the subjects, the digit 2 instructed them to shift attention from the currently attended stream to the unattended stream (e.g., vision to audition), whereas the digit 4 instructed them to maintain their attention on the currently attended stream; this mapping was reversed for the remaining subjects.
The order of targets was random, with two constraints: (1) no more than two hold events occurred in succession, and (2) targets never appeared in the unattended streams. Targets within the attended stream were separated by a temporal interval that was pseudorandomly jittered between 3 and 5 sec, with an average intertarget interval of 4 sec (Dale and Buckner, 1997
Monitoring eye position. To check for the possibility that switch-related activity could be attributed to movement of the eyes away from the central region of visual stimulation or to subjects closing their eyes whenever the targets were delivered within the auditory stream, eye position was monitored for 6 of the 11 subjects while they performed the task in the scanner via a custom-made video camera. The output of the camera was digitally recorded and later analyzed for eye movements. A calibration procedure established that eye position deviations of 2.5° or more could be detected reliably, as could blinks and eyelid closure. All of the subjects kept their eyes open and directed to the center of the display throughout the task, and no significant changes in fixation were made during the experimental runs. This conclusion was supported by the finding that the locus of attention modulated the magnitude of cortical activity in early visual areas and did not cause a spatial displacement of the locus of cortical activity, which would have been expected if observers diverted their eyes from the visual streams during those intervals.
MRI data acquisition. Imaging data were acquired with a 3 T Philips Gyroscan MRI scanner (Philips, Bothell, WA). Whole-brain echoplanar functional images (EPIs) were acquired with a sensitivity-encoding (SENSE) head coil (MRI Devices, Waukesha, WI). Twenty-seven transverse slices were acquired [repetition time (TR), 1480 msec; echo time (TE), 30 msec; flip angle, 65°; SENSE factor, 2; field of view, 240 mm; matrix, 64 x 64; slice thickness, 3 mm with 1 mm gap, yielding voxels that were 3.75 x 3.75 x 3 mm in size]. These parameters allowed for a whole-brain coverage with 100 volume acquisitions per run. High-resolution anatomic images were acquired with a T1-weighted, 200 slice magnetization-prepared rapid gradient echo sequence with SENSE level 2 (TR, 8.1 msec; TE, 3.8 msec; flip angle, 8°; prepulse T1 delay, 852.1 msec; isotropic voxels, 1 mm).
fMRI data analysis. Neuroimaging data were analyzed using BrainVoyager software (Brain Innovation, Maastricht, The Netherlands). First, functional data were motion and slice-time corrected and then high-pass filtered to remove components occurring three or fewer times over the course of the run. Spatial smoothing was not used. To correct for between-scan motion, each subject's EPI volume was coregistered to the 10th run acquired for that subject (the last functional run performed before the anatomical scan). After this interscan motion correction, functional data were registered with the anatomical volume.
Using a general linear model, the magnitude of the hemodynamic response was estimated for each time point after each event type. Specifically, we separately estimated the scaled fit coefficients (beta weights) at the onset of the target and the subsequent 11 time points (0-16.3 sec) for each event (hold vision, shift to audition, hold audition, and shift to vision) (http://afni.nimh.nih.gov/pub/dist/doc/3dDeconvolve.pdf). The magnitude of the beta weight associated with each time point reflects the relative change in the BOLD signal at that time point after each event.
To test for modality-specific attentional modulations, two targeted beta weight contrasts were constructed to represent the crossover interaction pattern observed in previous studies (Yantis et al., 2002
For each contrast, the single-voxel threshold in the group data were set to t(11) = 4.0, p < 0.002, uncorrected. A spatial cluster extent threshold was used to correct for multiple comparisons using AlphaSim (Alpha Simulations) with 2000 Monte Carlo simulations and taking into account the entire EPI matrix (http://afni.nimh.nih.gov/pub/dist/doc/AlphaSim.pdf). This procedure yielded a minimum cluster size of three voxels in the original acquisition space with a map-wise false-positive probability of p < 0.01.
Event-related averages of the BOLD signal were extracted from each significantly activated cluster, as revealed by the two contrasts. The time course was extracted for each subject using the following procedure: a temporal window was defined, extending from 6 sec before the target onset (4 TRs) to 16 sec after the target onset. Time courses were then averaged across all subjects for each of the four event types. The "baseline" (or 0% signal change) was defined as the mean activity during the 6 sec preceding each target. It is important to note that negative deflections in activity cannot necessarily be interpreted as "deactivations" but rather as relative differences in activity after a given event.
Results
Behavioral responses
Responses to auditory targets were slightly slower than to visual targets, and there was an additional delay associated with the need to shift attention from one modality to another. Mean response times were 556, 615, 640, and 654 msec for hold vision, shift from vision to audition, hold audition, and shift from audition to vision targets, respectively. A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted, with target type (hold and shift) and modality (vision and audition) as within-subject factors (modality for the shift events was defined relative to the starting modality, i.e., the shift from audition to vision was defined relative to the auditory modality). There was a significant main effect of modality (F(1,10) = 9.18; p < 0.05) and of target type (F(1,10) = 17.8; p < 0.01). The interaction approached significance (F(1,10) = 4.35; p = 0.085). Detection accuracy was 98, 99, 97, and 98% for hold vision, shift from vision to audition, hold audition, and shift from audition to vision, respectively. No significant effect of modality or target was observed for accuracy (F < 2).Attentional modulation of sensory cortical activity
Cortical regions exhibiting the crossover time course characteristic of attention shifts in auditory sensory regions are listed in Table 1; these include bilateral activations along the superior temporal gyrus (STG) in Heschl's gyrus (Fig. 2a), the locus of early auditory sensory cortex (Tzourio et al., 1997
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Table 1. Cortical regions exhibiting sensory attentional modulation and shift-related activity
View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Figure 2. Cortical activity in auditory and visual sensory regions during the attention shift task. a, Group activation pattern for regions more active during attention to audition than attention to vision (Heschl's gyrus). b, c, Mean event-related BOLD time course from activated voxels in the right (b) and left (c) auditory cortices, respectively, time locked to each of the four target types. d, Group activation pattern for regions more active during attention to vision than attention to audition (fusiform gyrus). e, f, Mean event-related BOLD time course from activated voxels in the right (e) and left (f) fusiform gyrus, time locked to each of the four target types.
The magnitude of the BOLD signal was greater after hold audition targets than after hold vision targets. This difference was already evident at the moment the targets themselves were presented (time 0 on the abscissa). This is because observers were already attending to either the auditory stream or the visual stream when the target in question appeared.A markedly different BOLD time course in these regions was elicited by shift targets. After the shift from audition to vision targets, activity in STG (bilaterally) begins by closely tracking the hold audition time course but, after
Several brain regions exhibited greater activity when attention was directed to vision than when it was directed to audition (Table 1), including the bilateral fusiform gyrus (Fig. 2d) and right middle temporal cortex. These attentional modulations of cortical activity in auditory and visual sensory regions are similar to those reported previously in vision (Corbetta et al., 1990
Shift-related activity
The central focus of this study is to examine the control of crossmodal attention shifts. We contrasted the magnitudes of the regression weights associated with shift targets (shift to vision and shift to audition) with the hold regressors (hold vision and hold audition). Cortical regions exhibiting a significantly greater BOLD response after shift events than after hold events included right precuneus/superior parietal lobule (SPL), left inferior parietal lobe, and right medial frontal gyrus (Table 1). The group mean event-related BOLD time course for each of the four target types extracted from precuneus/SPL is shown in Figure 3.
View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Figure 3. a, Cortical activity in precuneus/superior parietal lobule during the attention shift task reveals greater activity when attention was shifted from one modality to another compared with when attention was maintained within a single modality. IPL, Inferior parietal lobe. b, Mean event-related BOLD time course from activated voxels within the precuneus/SPL, time locked to each of the four target types.
Three aspects of these shift-related time courses distinguish them from the time courses seen in the contrast of attention to vision versus audition (Fig. 2). First, of course, is that shift-evoked responses occurred in parietal and frontal regions and not in primary sensory regions. Second, these regions exhibited no difference in activity for the attend-vision and attend-audition events at the onset of the target event (i.e., time 0). This distinguishes the pattern seen here from that in sensory areas, in which significant differences in the level of cortical activity were already apparent at time 0. Third, unlike the crossover pattern seen in sensory regions, BOLD activation differed only slightly in magnitude for shifts of attention from audition to vision versus shifts from vision to audition.a
Discussion
The present study examined cortical activity changes measured with fMRI during shifts of attention between vision and audition. Attention significantly modulated the magnitude of cortical activity in early visual and auditory sensory regions, and the dynamics of attention shifts were reflected in a crossover pattern of activity. These results corroborate and extend previous demonstrations of attentional modulation within vision and audition, respectively (Moran and Desimone, 1985By holding constant the sensory input and response demands of the task, we could examine cortical activity that reflected the initiation of a voluntary shift of attention. We observed transient increases in activity that were time locked to the initiation of crossmodal attention shifts in PPC and PFC. These dorsal frontoparietal attentional control signals are similar to those reported previously during shifts of attention within vision (Corbetta and Shulman, 2002
As noted earlier, there was no difference in the magnitude of activity in these shift-related regions at the moment the target in question appeared. This suggests that these areas do not provide a sustained signal to maintain a modality-specific attentive state. However, in this task, observers were never in a "neutral" or "relaxed" attentive state; instead, attention was continuously focused on either vision or audition throughout each run (except for brief intervals during the attention shifts themselves). It could be the case that the frontoparietal regions are continuously active throughout the task and maintain focused attention and that their activity is transiently enhanced when a shift of attention is required. Because we had no baseline for comparison, we could not test this hypothesis in the present paradigm.
Studies of attention shifts within vision (e.g., shifts of attention from left to right) have often shown modulation of sensory activity in early areas of the visual pathway, including V1, V2, and V4 (Tootell et al., 1998
Our findings support several conclusions. First, as shown in previous studies, early sensory cortical responses (in auditory and visual cortices) are modulated by attention. The "push-pull" effect of switching attention between vision and audition suggests a neural basis for behavioral evidence that focusing attention on auditory input (e.g., a cellular telephone conversation) can impair the detection of important visual events (e.g., while driving an automobile) (Strayer and Johnston, 2001
Second, we observed transient increases in activity in PPC and superior frontal sulcus/precentral gyrus after signals to shift attention from vision to audition or vice versa (Table 1). This suggests that these areas mediate executive control over attention shifts between vision and audition. Two possible implications of this finding can be considered. First, PPC activity at the initiation of a shift of attention from vision to audition and vice versa could reflect a (crossmodal) spatial attention shift (from the center of the head to the center of the computer screen and vice versa). On this account, PPC provides a supramodal spatial map that determines the current locus of attention regardless of sensory modality [for a discussion of supramodal spatial maps in parietal cortex, see the study by Macaluso et al. (2002a
An alternative possibility is that PPC mediates both spatial and nonspatial shifts of attention within and across multiple modalities. This account is supported by findings that nonspatial visual attention shifts evoke transient activity in PPC (Liu et al., 2003
Footnotes
Received July 20, 2004; revised October 7, 2004; accepted October 8, 2004.This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DA13165 (S.Y.). We thank Ed Connor, Amy Shelton, Brenda Rapp, J. T. Serences, T. Liu, J. B. Sala, F. Tong, M. Behrmann, X. Golay, T. Brawner, and K. Kahl for comments, advice, and assistance.
Correspondence should be addressed to Sarah Shomstein, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. E-mail: shomstein{at}cmu.edu.
Copyright © 2004 Society for Neuroscience 0270-6474/04/2410702-05$15.00/0
References
Andersen RA, Buneo CA (2002) Intentional maps in posterior parietal cortex. Annu Rev Neurosci 25: 189-220.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Bisley JW, Goldberg ME (2003) Neuronal activity in the lateral intraparietal area and spatial attention. Science 299: 81-86.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] Boynton GM, Engel SA, Glover GH, Heeger DJ (1996) Linear systems analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging in human V1. J Neurosci 16: 4207-4221.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] Burock MA, Buckner RL, Woldorff MG, Rosen BR, Dale AM (1998) Randomized event-related experimental designs allow for extremely rapid presentation rates using functional MRI. NeuroReport 9: 3735-3739.[Web of Science][Medline]
Corbetta M, Shulman GL (2002) Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci 3: 201-215.[Web of Science][Medline]
Corbetta M, Miezin FM, Dobmeyer S, Shulman GL, Petersen SE (1990) Attentional modulation of neural processing of shape, color, and velocity in humans. Science 248: 1556-1559.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] Corbetta M, Miezin FM, Dobmeyer S, Shulman GL, Petersen SE (1991) Selective and divided attention during visual discriminations of shape, color, and speed: functional anatomy by positron emission tomography. J Neurosci 11: 2383-2402.[Abstract]
Dale AM, Buckner RL (1997) Selective averaging of rapidly presented individual trials using fMRI. Hum Brain Mapp 5: 329-340.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Desimone R, Duncan J (1995) Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu Rev Neurosci 18: 193-222.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Downar J, Crawley AP, Mikulis DJ, Davis KD (2001) The effect of task relevance on the cortical response to changes in visual and auditory stimuli: an event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage 14: 1256-1267.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Giesbrecht B, Woldorff MG, Song AW, Mangun GR (2003) Neural mechanisms of top-down control during spatial and feature attention. Neuro-Image 19: 496-512.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Hopfinger JB, Buonocore MH, Mangun GR (2000) The neural mechanisms of top-down attentional control. Nat Neurosci 3: 284-291.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Jancke L, Mirzazade S, Shah NJ (1999) Attention modulates activity in the primary and the secondary auditory cortex: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study in human subjects. Neurosci Lett 266: 125-128.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Kastner S, Ungerleider LG (2000) Mechanisms of visual attention in the human cortex. Annu Rev Neurosci 23: 315-341.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Liu T, Slotnick SD, Serences JT, Yantis S (2003) Cortical mechanisms of feature-based attentional control. Cereb Cortex 13: 1334-1343.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] Macaluso E, Frith CD, Driver J (2000) Modulation of human visual cortex by crossmodal spatial attention. Science 289: 1206-1208.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] Macaluso E, Frith CD, Driver J (2002a) Supramodal effects of covert spatial orienting triggered by visual or tactile events. J Cognit Neurosci 14: 389-401.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Macaluso E, Frith CD, Driver J (2002b) Crossmodal spatial influences of touch on extrastriate visual areas take current gaze direction into account. Neuron 34: 647-658.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Macaluso E, Eimer M, Frith CD, Driver J (2003) Preparatory states in crossmodal spatial attention: spatial specificity and possible control mechanisms. Exp Brain Res 149: 62-74.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Moran J, Desimone R (1985) Selective attention gates visual processing in the extrastriate cortex. Science 229: 782-784.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] Motter BC (1994) Neural correlates of feature selective memory and popout in extrastriate area V4. J Neurosci 14: 2190-2199.[Abstract]
O'Craven KM, Rosen BR, Kwong KK, Treisman A, Savoy RL (1997) Voluntary attention modulates fMRI activity in human MT-MST. Neuron 18: 591-598.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Posner MI, Snyder CR, Davidson BJ (1980) Attention and the detection of signals. J Exp Psychol 109: 160-174.[Web of Science][Medline]
Reynolds JH, Chelazzi L, Desimone R (1999) Competitive mechanisms sub-serve attention in macaque areas V2 and V4. J Neurosci 19: 1736-1753.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] Serences JT, Schwarzbach J, Courtney SM, Golay X, Yantis S (2004) Control of object-based attention in human cortex. Cereb Cortex, in press.
Strayer DL, Johnston WA (2001) Driven to distraction: dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone. Psychol Sci 12: 462-466.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Strayer DL, Drews FA, Johnston WA (2003) Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. J Exp Psychol Appl 9: 23-32.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Talairach J, Tournoux P (1988) Co-planar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain. New York: Thieme.
Teder-Salejarvi WA, Munte TF, Sperlich F, Hillyard SA (1999) Intra-modal and crossmodal spatial attention to auditory and visual stimuli. An event-related brain potential study. Cognit Brain Res 8: 327-343.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tootell RB, Hadjikhani N, Hall EK, Marrett S, Vanduffel W, Vaughan JT, Dale AM (1998) The retinotopy of visual spatial attention. Neuron 21: 1409-1422.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Treue S, Maunsell JH (1996) Attentional modulation of visual motion processing in cortical areas MT and MST. Nature 382: 539-541.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tzourio N, Massioui FE, Crivello F, Joliot M, Renault B, Mazoyer B (1997) Functional anatomy of human auditory attention studied with PET. NeuroImage 5: 63-77.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Vandenberghe R, Gitelman DR, Parrish TB, Mesulam MM (2001) Location- or feature-based targeting of peripheral attention. NeuroImage 14: 37-47.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Wojciulik E, Kanwisher N (1999) The generality of parietal involvement in visual attention. Neuron 23: 747-764.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Yantis S, Schwarzbach J, Serences JT, Carlson RL, Steinmetz MA, Pekar JJ, Courtney SM (2002) Transient neural activity in human parietal cortex during spatial attention shifts. Nat Neurosci 5: 995-1002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
K. T. Hill and L. M. Miller
Auditory Attentional Control and Selection during Cocktail Party Listening
Cereb Cortex, July 2, 2009; (2009) bhp124v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
S. Sadaghiani, J. X. Maier, and U. Noppeney
Natural, Metaphoric, and Linguistic Auditory Direction Signals Have Distinct Influences on Visual Motion Processing
J. Neurosci., May 20, 2009; 29(20): 6490 - 6499.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
A.R. Mayer, A.R. Franco, J. Canive, and D.L. Harrington
The Effects of Stimulus Modality and Frequency of Stimulus Presentation on Cross-modal Distraction
Cereb Cortex, May 1, 2009; 19(5): 993 - 1007.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Y.-C. Chiu and S. Yantis
A Domain-Independent Source of Cognitive Control for Task Sets: Shifting Spatial Attention and Switching Categorization Rules
J. Neurosci., March 25, 2009; 29(12): 3930 - 3938.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
C. Villemure and M. C. Bushnell
Mood Influences Supraspinal Pain Processing Separately from Attention
J. Neurosci., January 21, 2009; 29(3): 705 - 715.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
J. W. Page, C. M. Thibeault, K. F. Page, and W. Lewinski
Pursuit Driver Training Improves Memory for Skill-Based Information
Police Quarterly, September 1, 2008; 11(3): 353 - 365.
[Abstract] [PDF]
J. Plailly, J. D. Howard, D. R. Gitelman, and J. A. Gottfried
Attention to Odor Modulates Thalamocortical Connectivity in the Human Brain
J. Neurosci., May 14, 2008; 28(20): 5257 - 5267.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
L. A. Newman and J. McGaughy
Cholinergic Deafferentation of Prefrontal Cortex Increases Sensitivity to Cross-Modal Distractors during a Sustained Attention Task
J. Neurosci., March 5, 2008; 28(10): 2642 - 2650.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
A. A. Stevens, M. Snodgrass, D. Schwartz, and K. Weaver
Preparatory Activity in Occipital Cortex in Early Blind Humans Predicts Auditory Perceptual Performance
J. Neurosci., October 3, 2007; 27(40): 10734 - 10741.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
V. M. Ciaramitaro, G. T. Buracas, and G. M. Boynton
Spatial and Cross-Modal Attention Alter Responses to Unattended Sensory Information in Early Visual and Auditory Human Cortex
J Neurophysiol, October 1, 2007; 98(4): 2399 - 2413.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
S. Watkins, P. Dalton, N. Lavie, and G. Rees
Brain Mechanisms Mediating Auditory Attentional Capture in Humans
Cereb Cortex, July 1, 2007; 17(7): 1694 - 1700.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
J. T. Serences and S. Yantis
Spatially Selective Representations of Voluntary and Stimulus-Driven Attentional Priority in Human Occipital, Parietal, and Frontal Cortex
Cereb Cortex, February 1, 2007; 17(2): 284 - 293.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
N. Hon, R. A. Epstein, A. M. Owen, and J. Duncan
Frontoparietal activity with minimal decision and control.
J. Neurosci., September 20, 2006; 26(38): 9805 - 9809.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
P. F Balan and J. Gottlieb
Integration of Exogenous Input into a Dynamic Salience Map Revealed by Perturbing Attention
J. Neurosci., September 6, 2006; 26(36): 9239 - 9249.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
S. Molholm, P. Sehatpour, A. D. Mehta, M. Shpaner, M. Gomez-Ramirez, S. Ortigue, J. P. Dyke, T. H. Schwartz, and J. J. Foxe
Audio-Visual Multisensory Integration in Superior Parietal Lobule Revealed by Human Intracranial Recordings
J Neurophysiol, August 1, 2006; 96(2): 721 - 729.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
S. Shomstein and M. Behrmann
Cortical systems mediating visual attention to both objects and spatial locations
PNAS, July 25, 2006; 103(30): 11387 - 11392.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
R. J. Polewan, C. M. Vigorito, C. D. Nason, R. A. Block, and J. W. Moore
A cartesian reflex assessment of face processing.
Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev, March 1, 2006; 5(1): 3 - 23.
[Abstract] [PDF]
S. Shomstein and S. Yantis
Parietal Cortex Mediates Voluntary Control of Spatial and Nonspatial Auditory Attention
J. Neurosci., January 11, 2006; 26(2): 435 - 439.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
J. A. Johnson and R. J. Zatorre
Attention to Simultaneous Unrelated Auditory and Visual Events: Behavioral and Neural Correlates
Cereb Cortex, October 1, 2005; 15(10): 1609 - 1620.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
This Article Abstract 
Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager 
Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (59) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Shomstein, S. Articles by Yantis, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Shomstein, S. Articles by Yantis, S.
|
|
|
|
 |
|