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
Journal Club

The Role of Object Individuation in Attention and Visual Processing

Bridgitt Shea
Journal of Neuroscience 23 September 2020, 40 (39) 7387-7389; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1257-20.2020
Bridgitt Shea
Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, 3800 Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Throughout daily life, we are exposed to excess information that is beyond our capacity to process. Selective attention filters out unnecessary noise and allows us to focus on relevant stimuli (Noonan et al., 2018). Research has long focused on trying to uncover the complex neural mechanisms that underlie attention and its role in perception and, consequently, decision-making. Extensive behavioral data have consistently shown, for example, that cuing the location of an upcoming target leads to more accurate and faster responses, suggesting that covert attention increases the rate of processing for visual stimuli at the attended location (Carrasco and McElree, 2001; Carrasco et al., 2006; Grubb et al., 2015). What remains unclear, however, is exactly how covert attention exerts this influence: is it via enhancement of early sensory processing, via enhanced integration of sensory input (i.e., evidence accumulation), or via response preparation?

Research has established several neurophysiological markers that may represent different aspects of attention and visual processing. For example, in electroencephalographic (EEG) recordings, an early negative voltage deflection occurs ∼150–300 ms after target presentation and is measured at lateralized temporal occipital sites. This voltage deflection is termed the “N2pc” and has frequently been the subject of investigation in attention studies. Although widely believed to be involved in early selection processes, the mechanism underlying the N2pc is still debated (Hickey et al., 2006; Kiss et al., 2008; Mazza and Caramazza, 2015). One line of research has proposed that the N2pc reflects attention selection related to object individuation (Kiss et al., 2008); that is, the transformation of raw sensory information into an object (target) representation (Mazza and Caramazza, 2015). Consistent with this view, studies have shown that N2pc amplitude is influenced by the number of items that need to be individuated (Pagano and Mazza, 2012), whereas no such effect is observed when individuation is not required (Mazza and Caramazza, 2011).

To understand how covert attention influences visual processing, Foster et al. (2020) recorded EEG continuously while subjects performed a visual search task. They measured differences in the latency of the N2pc instead of amplitude, because previous research that focused on amplitude effects has been unable to fully explain behavioral effects (Di Russo et al., 2003). Additionally, research on latency effects has been inconclusive. Because of previous research suggesting that the N2pc may reflect shifts of attention rather than object individuation (Eimer, 1996), Foster et al. (2020) attempted to exclude this explanation to provide stronger support for the object individuation account. They implemented an inverted encoding model with alpha-band activity used to track the allocation of spatial attention. Inverted encoding models allow one to estimate specific aspects of neuronal activity from recordings of population activity. For example, a signal reflecting the subpopulation of neurons tuned for a specific visual stimulus property, such as spatial location, might be estimated from alpha-band activity in the EEG (Foster et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2018). Foster et al. (2020) modeled alpha activity at each electrode as a weighted sum of eight channels tuned for eight possible stimulus locations. As a result of this model inversion process, they were able to use alpha-band activity to track endogenous allocation of spatial attention over time. If participants allocated attention to the cued target location before target onset, and not after target onset, then any target-elicited N2pc effects would therefore represent another mechanism, such as object individuation.

Across two experiments, participants searched for a target shape, a diamond with a missing corner, among a series of seven distractor squares. Participants had to report which side of the target (left/right) was missing a corner. Participants were instructed that half of the trials were preceded by a cue revealing the exact location of the upcoming target (informative cues), and half were preceded by a cue revealing no information (noninformative cues). Consistent with previous research, the participants showed increased accuracy and faster reaction times with informative cues than with noninformative cues, suggesting covert attention was speeding visual processing.

Foster et al. (2020) also observed earlier (by ∼22 ms) N2pc onsets for informative cues than for noninformative cues. This is a key finding, as it is the first evidence of covert attention affecting the latency of an EEG marker and indicates that covert attention speeds visual processing by affecting the N2pc. Additionally, the alpha-band analyses revealed that participants attended to the cued target location before target onset during informative cue conditions, but did not allocate attention when given noninformative cues. This suggests that the effects observed for the N2pc were unlikely to reflect shifting attention, as this was not required after target onset. The authors conclude that these results provide support for the object individuation account of the N2pc and suggest that covert attention speeds visual processing through this process.

The results presented by Foster et al. (2020) have important implications for how we understand the role of covert attention in visual processing and subsequent influences on behavior. Here they show that covert attention influences N2pc latency, and with their alpha-band power analyses they provide support for an object individuation interpretation of the N2pc. This suggests that the well established finding that induced covert attention speeds visual processing (Carrasco and McElree, 2001; Carrasco et al., 2006; Grubb et al., 2015) occurs via speeding the process of object individuation. However, it is important to consider broader interpretations of the results and ask whether further analyses could clarify these results and lead to further insight into the role of covert attention in visual processing.

A related area of research has focused on understanding the relationship between distractor suppression and target enhancement in selective attention. Previous research has suggested that these are independent processes and may be achieved by separate mechanisms (Wöstmann et al., 2019). Moreover, there has been debate about whether the N2pc reflects mainly distractor suppression (Luck and Hillyard, 1994) or enhancement of target-processing mechanisms (Eimer, 1996; Hickey et al., 2009; Mazza et al., 2009; Loughnane et al., 2016). The object individuation interpretation strongly aligns with the target enhancement account; it describes the process facilitating the binding of features to form a representation of the target object and has been proposed in opposition to the distractor suppression account (Mazza et al., 2009; Mazza and Caramazza, 2015). The data presented by Foster et al. (2020) do not completely exclude a distractor suppression explanation, however. For example, given that participants precisely attended to the target location before target onset, they may have been more prepared to suppress distractors. Consequently, such suppression would occur earlier, and thus could explain the earlier N2pc observed under informative cue conditions.

It is also important to consider that the N2pc may reflect a complex interaction of mechanisms involved in attention. The N2pc is a composite waveform. It is measured by subtracting the negative waveform observed at sites ipsilateral to target location (N2i) from the negative waveform observed at contralateral sites (N2c). By using the N2pc, the authors may have masked independent, lateralized effects (Hickey et al., 2006). Recent research has focused on the N2c and N2i separately (Loughnane et al., 2016; Newman et al., 2017). This line of research supports the notion that the N2i and N2c are independent EEG components reflecting different mechanisms. Loughnane et al. (2016), for example, showed that N2c amplitude predicted reaction time through its influence on the onset and buildup rate of the centroparietal positivity (CPP), a neuronal marker of evidence accumulation (O'Connell et al., 2012; Loughnane et al., 2016; Newman et al., 2017). Similarly, Newman et al. (2017) found a relationship between pretarget alpha power, N2c latency, and the CPP that explained visuospatial bias observed in individuals. Although the N2i is influenced by target salience, it has not yet been shown to have a clear relationship with behavior (Loughnane et al., 2016; Newman et al., 2017). Nonetheless, this demonstrates that the two signals may reflect independent mechanisms. Therefore, examining the lateralized effects of covert attention in the paradigm used by Foster et al. (2020) may help us understand the relative contribution of target enhancement/object individuation and distractor suppression on these waveforms.

Further investigation of the relationship between the N2 signals and other markers of visual processing may also aid in our interpretation of the behavioral results observed by Foster et al. (2020). As the authors discuss, the informative cue conditions resulted in reaction times ∼50 ms earlier than the noninformative condition. Given that the latency effects of the N2pc are ∼20 ms, this suggests there may be more involved in this process than what is reflected by just the N2pc. Indeed, the authors mention that effects on earlier sensory representation and/or later decision or response preparation are possible. Considering this, it would be valuable to explore how the latency effect may relate to other stages of visual processing and subsequent decision-making, and to what degree this can explain behavior.

Previous research has identified relationships between alpha power measures and N2pc/N2 signals that appear to influence behavior (Newman et al., 2017; Bacigalupo and Luck, 2019). Newman et al. (2017), for example, showed that greater suppression of pretarget alpha power in the right hemisphere predicted earlier N2c onsets for left hemifield targets, which further influenced a marker of evidence accumulation and reaction time. Additionally, Bacigalupo and Luck (2019) showed in a visual search task that the suppression of alpha power in posterior regions in response to the presentation of the target may have an active role in target processing and may reflect a related, yet separate, mechanism to the N2pc. Further investigation of the relationship between alpha power and N2pc/N2 signals may help to further explain the reaction time results observed by Foster et al. (2020). For example, does asymmetry in pretarget alpha suppression predict N2 signal latency and/or response time? Is this relationship modulated by cueing target location? Would the magnitude of target-elicited alpha power suppression also be influenced by covert attention? Exploring these possibilities may better explain the response time differences observed.

To conclude, Foster et al. (2020) offer novel findings about the role of covert attention in visual processing by showing that it speeds the onset of the N2pc and providing compelling evidence that this reflects object individuation. This finding will be an asset to future research that continues to break down the role of covert attention in visual processing, which may aid our understanding of why and how these systems fail.

Footnotes

  • Editor's Note: These short reviews of recent JNeurosci articles, written exclusively by students or postdoctoral fellows, summarize the important findings of the paper and provide additional insight and commentary. If the authors of the highlighted article have written a response to the Journal Club, the response can be found by viewing the Journal Club at www.jneurosci.org. For more information on the format, review process, and purpose of Journal Club articles, please see http://jneurosci.org/content/jneurosci-journal-club

  • This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program scholarship.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Bridgitt Shea at bridgitt.shea{at}monash.edu

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bacigalupo F,
    2. Luck SJ
    (2019) Lateralized suppression of alpha-band EEG activity as a mechanism of target processing. J Neurosci 39:900–917. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0183-18.2018 pmid:30523067
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Carrasco M,
    2. McElree B
    (2001) Covert attention accelerates the rate of visual information processing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:5363–5367. doi:10.1073/pnas.081074098
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Carrasco M,
    2. Giordano AM,
    3. McElree B
    (2006) Attention speeds processing across eccentricity: feature and conjunction searches. Vision Res 46:2028–2040. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.12.015 pmid:16481020
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Di Russo F,
    2. Martínez A,
    3. Hillyard SA
    (2003) Source analysis of event-related cortical activity during visuo-spatial attention. Cereb Cortex 13:486–499. doi:10.1093/cercor/13.5.486 pmid:12679295
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Eimer M
    (1996) The N2pc component as an indicator of attentional selectivity. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 99:225–234. doi:10.1016/0013-4694(96)95711-9 pmid:8862112
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Foster JJ,
    2. Sutterer DW,
    3. Serences JT,
    4. Vogel EK,
    5. Awh E
    (2017) Alpha-band oscillations enable spatially and temporally resolved tracking of covert spatial attention. Psychol Sci 28:929–941. doi:10.1177/0956797617699167 pmid:28537480
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Foster JJ,
    2. Bsales EM,
    3. Awh E
    (2020) Covert spatial attention speeds target individuation. J Neurosci 40:2717–2726. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2962-19.2020 pmid:32054678
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Grubb MA,
    2. White AL,
    3. Heeger DJ,
    4. Carrasco M
    (2015) Interactions between voluntary and involuntary attention modulate the quality and temporal dynamics of visual processing. Psychon Bull Rev 22:437–444. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0698-y pmid:25117089
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Hickey C,
    2. McDonald JJ,
    3. Theeuwes J
    (2006) Electrophysiological evidence of the capture of visual attention. J Cogn Neurosci 18:604–613. doi:10.1162/jocn.2006.18.4.604 pmid:16768363
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Hickey C,
    2. Di Lollo V,
    3. McDonald JJ
    (2009) Electrophysiological indices of target and distractor processing in visual search. J Cogn Neurosci 21:760–775. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21039 pmid:18564048
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Kiss M,
    2. Van Velzen J,
    3. Eimer M
    (2008) The N2pc component and its links to attention shifts and spatially selective visual processing. Psychophysiology 45:240–249. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00611.x pmid:17971061
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Liu T,
    2. Cable D,
    3. Gardner JL
    (2018) Inverted encoding models of human population response conflate noise and neural tuning width. J Neurosci 38:398–408. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2453-17.2017 pmid:29167406
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Loughnane GM,
    2. Newman DP,
    3. Bellgrove MA,
    4. Lalor EC,
    5. Kelly SP,
    6. O'Connell RG
    (2016) Target selection signals influence perceptual decisions by modulating the onset and rate of evidence accumulation. Curr Biol 26:496–502. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.049 pmid:26853360
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Luck SJ,
    2. Hillyard SA
    (1994) Spatial filtering during visual search: evidence from human electrophysiology. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 20:1000–1014. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.20.5.1000 pmid:7964526
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Mazza V,
    2. Caramazza A
    (2011) Temporal brain dynamics of multiple object processing: the flexibility of individuation. PLoS One 6:e17453. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017453
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Mazza V,
    2. Caramazza A
    (2015) Multiple object individuation and subitizing in enumeration: a view from electrophysiology. Front Hum Neurosci 9:162. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00162 pmid:25883563
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Mazza V,
    2. Turatto M,
    3. Caramazza A
    (2009) Attention selection, distractor suppression and N2pc. Cortex 45:879–890. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2008.10.009 pmid:19084218
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Newman DP,
    2. Loughnane GM,
    3. Kelly SP,
    4. Connell RG,
    5. Bellgrove MA
    (2017) Visuospatial asymmetries arise from differences in the onset time of perceptual evidence accumulation. J Neurosci 37:3378–3385. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3512-16.2017 pmid:28242798
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Noonan MP,
    2. Crittenden BM,
    3. Jensen O,
    4. Stokes MG
    (2018) Selective inhibition of distracting input. Behav Brain Res 355:36–47. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2017.10.010 pmid:29042157
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. O'Connell RG,
    2. Dockree PM,
    3. Kelly SP
    (2012) A supramodal accumulation-to-bound signal that determines perceptual decisions in humans. Nat Neurosci 15:1729–1735. doi:10.1038/nn.3248 pmid:23103963
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Pagano S,
    2. Mazza V
    (2012) Individuation of multiple targets during visual enumeration: new insights from electrophysiology. Neuropsychologia 50:754–761. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.01.009 pmid:22266261
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Wöstmann M,
    2. Alavash M,
    3. Obleser J
    (2019) Alpha oscillations in the human brain implement distractor suppression independent of target selection. J Neurosci 39:9797–9805. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1954-19.2019 pmid:31641052
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 40 (39)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 40, Issue 39
23 Sep 2020
  • 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.
The Role of Object Individuation in Attention and Visual Processing
(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
The Role of Object Individuation in Attention and Visual Processing
Bridgitt Shea
Journal of Neuroscience 23 September 2020, 40 (39) 7387-7389; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1257-20.2020

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
The Role of Object Individuation in Attention and Visual Processing
Bridgitt Shea
Journal of Neuroscience 23 September 2020, 40 (39) 7387-7389; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1257-20.2020
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
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • 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

  • Toward an Interpersonal Neuroscience in Technologically Assisted (Virtual) Interactions
  • Complex Interactions between Distinct Theta Oscillatory Patterns during Sleep Deprivation
  • Motion Processing and Categorical Decisions in Medial Superior Temporal and Lateral Intraparietal Areas
Show more Journal Club
  • 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.