Spatial cueing, sensory gating and selective response preparation: an ERP study on visuo-spatial orienting

https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-5597(93)90017-JGet rights and content

Abstract

Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded in a visuo-spatial attention task where the position of an imperative stimulus was indicated either validly or invalidly by a central arrow (trial-by-trial cueing). Subjects had to perform choice RT tasks with the response being dependent either on the identity of the target stimulus or on its position. When target identity was relevant for response selection, validly cued stimuli elicited amplitude enhancements of the early, sensory-evoked P1 and N1 components at lateral posterior sites. The N1 validity effect was limited to scalp sites ipsilateral to the visual field of stimulus presentation. Although these effects were found only when the sensory discrimination task was considerably difficult, they are in line with models assuming that modulations of sensory-perceptual processing (“sensory gating”) are induced by spatial cueing. However, when target location was response-relevant, N1 amplitude enhancements were consistently elicited by invalidly cued letters.

CNV and LRP measures indicated that the arrow elicited response-related processing in the cue-target interval. Such processes occurred even when the cue contained no information about an upcoming response. Two consecutive lateralization phases were distinguishable in the LRP, with experimentally induced response assignments becoming effective only during the second phase.

References (29)

  • R.G. Eason

    Visual evoked potentials correlates of early neural filtering during selective attention

    Bull. Psychon. Soc.

    (1981)
  • A.W.K. Gaillard

    The CNV as an index of response preparation

  • M.R. Harter et al.

    Brain mechanisms of visual selective attention

  • M.R. Harter et al.

    Neural processes involved in directing attention

    J. Cogn. Neurosci.

    (1989)
  • Cited by (0)

    The present study was supported by the Max-Planck-Institute for Psychological Research, Munich.

    1

    The author thanks Christina Ludwig, Friederike Schlaghecken, and Margot Steinleitner for running the experiments, and Erich Schröger as well as two anonymous referees for valuable comments on earlier drafts of this article.

    View full text