Ayelet Sapir

What limits the ability to attend several locations simultaneously? There are two possibilities: Either attention cannot be divided without incurring a cost, or spatial memory is limited and observers forget which locations to monitor. We compared motion discrimination when attention was directed to one or multiple locations by briefly presented central cues. The cues were matched for the amount of spatial information they provided. Several random dot kinematograms (RDKs) followed the spatial cues; one of them contained task-relevant, coherent motion. When four RDKs were presented, discrimination accuracy was identical when one and two locations were indicated by equally informative cues. However, when six RDKs were presented, discrimination accuracy was higher following one rather than multiple location cues. We examined whether memory of the cued locations was diminished under these conditions. Recall of the cued locations was tested when participants attended the cued locations a...

A dual-task experiment was designed to determine whether attentional effects are modulated by the size of the exogenous cue. A random-dot kinematogram (RDK), containing 100 white dots, was presented in each visual quadrant. In one RDK, the dots moved in a coherent direction for 200ms. On 50% of the trials, one of the dots in one RDK turned red. Participants reported the direction of coherent motion and the location or absence of the colour probe, and accuracy was measured. In the first experiment the exogenous cue was a luminance-change frame surrounding the RDK, ‘flashing’ for 80ms. The cue was uninformative for both the location of the coherent motion and the location of the colour probe. A validity effect was found for the motion discrimination, but not probe localisation. In the second experiment, the cue frame only surrounded the central region of the RDK, to spatially match the probe stimulus. The red dot probe was confined to the same central region of each RDK. A validity effect was evident for both tasks. A third experiment was conducted to ensure that the difference between Experiments 1 and 2 was due to the cue, rather than probe location uncertainty. The cue surrounded the RDK as in Experiment 1, but the probe was confined to the central portion of the RDKs as in Experiment 2. As in Experiment 1, there was only a validity effect for the motion discrimination task, confirming that exogenous spatial attention is affected by the size of the cue. These results suggest that the size of the exogenous cue must match the size of the stimulus in order to have an effect.

Unilateral spatial neglect (neglect) is a syndrome characterized by perceptual deficits that prevent patients from attending and responding to the side of space and of the body opposite a damaged hemisphere (contralesional side). Neglect also involves motor deficits: patients may be slower to initiate a motor response to targets appearing in the left hemispace, even when using their unaffected arm (directional hypokinesia). Although this impairment is well known, its anatomical correlate has not been established. We tested 52 patients with neglect after right hemisphere stroke, and conducted an anatomical analysis on 29 of them to find the anatomical correlate of directional hypokinesia. We found that patients with directional hypokinesia had a lesion involving the ventral lateral putamen, the claustrum, and the white matter underneath the frontal lobe. Most importantly, none of the patients without directional hypokinesia had a lesion in the same region. The localization of neglect's motor deficits to the basal ganglia establishes interesting homologies with animal data; it also suggests that a relative depletion of dopamine in the nigrostriatal pathway on the same side of the lesion may be an important pathophysiological mechanism potentially amenable to intervention.

Exogenous attention is an involuntary, reflexive orienting response that results in enhanced processing at the attended location. The standard view is that this enhancement generalizes across visual properties of a stimulus. We test whether the size of an exogenous cue sets the attentional field and whether this leads to different effects on stimuli with different visual properties. In a dual task with a random-dot kinematogram (RDK) in each quadrant of the screen, participants discriminated the direction of moving dots in one RDK and localized one red dot. Precues were uninformative and consisted of either a large or a small luminance-change frame. The motion discrimination task showed attentional effects following both large and small exogenous cues. The red dot probe localization task showed attentional effects following a small cue, but not a large cue. Two additional experiments showed that the different effects on localization were not due to reduced spatial uncertainty or suppression of RDK dots in the surround. These results indicate that the effects of exogenous attention depend on the size of the cue and the properties of the task, suggesting the involvement of receptive fields with different sizes in different tasks. These attentional effects are likely to be driven by bottom-up mechanisms in early visual areas.

Inhibition of return (IOR) is a mechanism whereby the attentional system favors novel locations by inhibiting already scanned ones. An important question is what the neural structures are involved. Recently, we studied a patient with damage to the superior colliculus (SC) and concluded that the SC generates IOR. However, it is possible that IOR is generated beyond the colliculus, for example, by the pulvinar. In this paper we tested three patients with unilateral damage to the pulvinar and demonstrated that the pulvinar is not necessary for IOR generation, providing additional support to the suggestion that the SC generates IOR. In addition, since we used monocular presentation, we were able to furnish behavioral evidence for nasal-temporal asymmetrical representation of visual input in the pulvinar.

Parietal cortex has been implicated in the updating, after eye movements, of a salience map that is required for coherent visual experience and for the control of visually guided behavior. The current experiment investigated whether TMS over anterior intraparietal cortex (AIPCx), just after a saccade, would affect the ability to update and maintain a salience map. In order to generate a salience map, we employed a paradigm in which an uninformative cue was presented at one object in a display to generate inhibition of return (IOR)-an inhibitory tag that renders the cued object less salient than others in the display, and that slows subsequent responses to visual transients at its location. Following the cue, participants made a saccade to either left or right, and we then probed for updating of the location of IOR by measuring manual reaction time to targets appearing at cued location of the cued compared to an uncued object. Between the time of saccade initiation and target appearance, dual-pulse TMS was targeted over right (Experiment 1) or left AIPCx (Experiment 2), and a vertex control side. Updating of the location of IOR was eliminated by TMS over right, but not the left, AIPCx, suggesting that right parietal cortex is involved in the remapping of IOR. Remapping was eliminated by right AIPCx, regardless of whether the saccade was made to the left (contralateral), or right (ipsilateral) visual field, and regardless of which field the target appeared in. We conclude that right AIPCx is the neural substrate for maintaining a salience map across saccades, and not simply for propagating an efference copy of saccade commands.