Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comment
. 2006 Jun 28;26(26):6907-8.
doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.2037-06.2006.

Attention and intention, decoded!

Alexandra List  1 , Ayelet Landau
Affiliations
Comment

Attention and intention, decoded!

Alexandra List et al. J Neurosci. .
No abstract available

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
A, Schematic depiction of the stimuli appearing at the start of each trial (gray box in B); the effector cue, indicating which action to perform at fixation offset, was illuminated red or green. All eight peripheral locations were used in the experiment, and fixation (black central dot) was illuminated during the premovement delay. B, PPC single-cell responses to a preferred direction for different actions, adapted from Quiroga et al. (2006). The gray box (0–150 ms) indicates when the effector cue was present. The analysis window spanned 150–750 ms. The response of the PRR cell is shown in black: the solid line indicates when a reach was cued, and the dashed line indicates when a saccade was cued. Similarly, the response of the LIP cell is shown in gray: the solid line indicates when a reach was cued, and the dashed line indicates when a saccade was cued. Effector specificity is revealed by the difference between the solid and dashed lines. In the case of the PRR cell, reach trials show increased firing above saccade trials. The converse is true for the LIP cell. Note the different response profiles between PRR and LIP cells, assuming responses are typical of those areas. C, Schematic depiction of the suggested modification to the task. Here, transient visual onsets occur at all possible target locations. Comparing activity from trials containing task-relevant (red or green) cues to task-irrelevant cues would allow for a dissociation between attention drawn to the abrupt visual onset and attention deployed to a task-relevant location. The effects could be seen either early (during the cue stimulus period) or during the delay period before the go signal (fixation offset).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment on

References

    1. Colby CL, Goldberg ME (1999). Space and attention in parietal cortex. Annu Rev Neurosci 22:319–349. - PubMed
    1. Quiroga RQ Snyder LH, Batista AP, Cui H, Andersen RA (2006). Movement intention is better predicted than attention in the posterior parietal cortex. J Neurosci 26:3615–3620. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shenoy KV, Meeker D, Cao S, Kureshi SA, Pesaran B, Buneo CA, Batista AP, Mitra PP, Burdick JW, Andersen RA (2003). Neural prosthetic control signals from plan activity. NeuroReport 14:591–596. - PubMed
    1. Snyder LH, Batista AP, Andersen RA (2000). Saccade-related activity in the parietal reach region. J Neurophysiol 83:1099–1102. - PubMed
    1. Yantis S, Jonides J (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: evidence from visual search. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 10:601–621. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources