Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Articles, Behavioral/Systems/Cognitive

Subcortical Mechanisms of Feature-Based Attention

Keith A. Schneider
Journal of Neuroscience 8 June 2011, 31 (23) 8643-8653; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6274-10.2011
Keith A. Schneider
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Visual stimuli. Single frames of the stimuli are shown. a, Experiment 1. The segments rotated clockwise around the fixation point with a period of 40 s. In one of the segments, the dots were white and moving, a fraction of the dots in a coherent direction. In the other segment, the dots were static but cycling through color space. The subjects fixated, covertly attended to one of the segments, and detected either changes in the coherence direction in the moving dot field or a convergence of the color of a fraction of the dots in the colored dot field. b, Experiment 2. The dot fields were the same as in experiment 1, but they overlapped in the visual field. The subjects fixated and performed the same detection task as in experiment 1 and were instructed which field to attend to by a character at fixation, which alternated between M (moving dots) and C (colored dots) every 20 s.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Detection probability. The probability of detection of an event in experiment 2 at a given time during the stimulus cycle is plotted as a mean across subjects. During the first 20 s of each cycle, subjects attended to the moving dots and detected changes in the direction or motion coherence. During the second 20 s of each cycle, subjects attended to the colored dots and detected color convergences.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Regions of interest. Two coronal slices are shown from experiment 1 in the same well activated subject, zoomed to show the detail in the subcortex. The second slice is 4 mm posterior to the first. ROIs are shown for the LGN, LP, SC, and IP. The circular color legend in the upper right indicates the locations in the visual field to which voxels of a given color best responded. Left (L), right (R), superior (S), and inferior (I) directions are labeled.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Volumetric distribution of the retinotopic visual field representation. Each point in the polar plots indicates the average volume of each nucleus, across bilaterally activated subjects in experiment 1, representing a 22.5° segment of the visual field at the given polar angle. Abbreviations are as defined in Figure 3; the scales differ among the nuclei. The shaded areas indicate the extent of the SEM. The direction terms orient the plots to locations in the visual field.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Spatial attention. a, The mean response amplitudes across subjects are shown for each nucleus (abbreviations are as defined in Fig. 3) for the moving and colored dot stimuli during the attended (white bars) and unattended (hatched bars) conditions in experiment 1. Error bars indicate the SEM over the subjects. The p value is shown for the two-tailed t test between the attentional conditions for each nucleus and stimulus: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. In addition, in the LGN, the mean response to the moving dot fields was significantly greater than that to the colored dot fields. b, The mean AMIs are shown for the moving dot (white bars) and colored dot (shaded bars) fields in each nucleus. The p values indicate deviance from zero. Conventions are as in a.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Experiment 2 mean time series. The mean response over subjects in each nucleus (abbreviations are as defined in Fig. 3) during one stimulus period is shown. The shaded area indicates the extent of the SEM over subjects. During the first half of each stimulus period, the subjects attended to the moving dot field. The hatched region indicates the second half of the stimulus period during which the subjects attended to the colored dot field.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Experiment 2 response modes. The mean time series in each nucleus (abbreviations are as defined in Fig. 3) across all scanning runs and all subjects was correlated with two frequencies: f0, the fundamental stimulus frequency (motion vs color, white bars), a period of 40 s corresponding to one stimulus cycle between attending to the moving dots and colored dots; and f1, double the fundamental frequency (attention switching, shaded bars), a period of 20 s corresponding to changes in the attentional state. The dashed lines indicate the significance levels of the correlation coefficients.

  • Figure 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 8.

    Experiment 2 power spectra. Each graph shows the power spectra of the mean response across subjects in each ROI during experiment 2. The open circle marks the power at six cycles/scan, which was the fundamental frequency of the experiment, corresponding to the difference between the attention conditions. The closed circle marks 12 cycles/scan, which was the frequency of the switches between the attentional conditions.

  • Figure 9.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 9.

    Experiment 2 response phases. The mean response amplitudes over all voxels in all subjects at f0, the fundamental frequency of the motion vs color attention cycle (red lines), or f1, the frequency of attentional switches (green lines), are plotted as a function of response phase in polar coordinates in the left two plots and in Cartesian coordinates in the right two plots. The upper two plots are for the LGN and the lower two the SC.

  • Figure 10.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 10.

    Experiment 2 responses by subject. The gray circles plot for each subject the phases and amplitudes of the responses in experiment 2 as a vector average of the responses of all of the individual voxels in each ROI. The black circles plot the vector average over all subjects. The left two plots indicate the responses at the fundamental frequency, f0, which is the frequency of one motion vs color attention cycle. The right two plots indicate the responses at the first harmonic, f1, which is the frequency of the switches between attentional states. The upper two plots are for the LGN and the lower two the SC.

  • Figure 11.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 11.

    Experiment 2 response phases by voxel. The voxels in each ROI are colored according to their response phases in experiment 2. Black voxels responded with a phase ϕ < π, for f0, the fundamental frequency of the motion vs color attention cycle (left two images), or f1, the frequency of attentional switches (right two images), and white voxels responded with a phase ϕ ≥ π. The two top (coronal) images show the LGN ROI in one subject (only the left LGN is visible in this plane), and the two bottom images show the SC ROI in a different subject.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    The mean volumes activated by the retinotopic stimuli in experiment 1 for the left and right LGN, SC, LP, and IP

    Left (mm3)Right (mm3)
    LGN188 ± 23176 ± 26
    SC113 ± 19100 ± 19
    LP73 ± 1576 ± 12
    IP87 ± 1274 ± 12
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 31 (23)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 31, Issue 23
8 Jun 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Subcortical Mechanisms of Feature-Based Attention
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Subcortical Mechanisms of Feature-Based Attention
Keith A. Schneider
Journal of Neuroscience 8 June 2011, 31 (23) 8643-8653; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6274-10.2011

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Subcortical Mechanisms of Feature-Based Attention
Keith A. Schneider
Journal of Neuroscience 8 June 2011, 31 (23) 8643-8653; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6274-10.2011
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Articles

  • Choice Behavior Guided by Learned, But Not Innate, Taste Aversion Recruits the Orbitofrontal Cortex
  • Maturation of Spontaneous Firing Properties after Hearing Onset in Rat Auditory Nerve Fibers: Spontaneous Rates, Refractoriness, and Interfiber Correlations
  • Insulin Treatment Prevents Neuroinflammation and Neuronal Injury with Restored Neurobehavioral Function in Models of HIV/AIDS Neurodegeneration
Show more Articles

Behavioral/Systems/Cognitive

  • The Laminar Development of Direction Selectivity in Ferret Visual Cortex
  • Individual Differences in Amygdala-Medial Prefrontal Anatomy Link Negative Affect, Impaired Social Functioning, and Polygenic Depression Risk
  • Influence of Reward on Corticospinal Excitability during Movement Preparation
Show more Behavioral/Systems/Cognitive
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.