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
. 2010 Nov 4:1359:155-77.
doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.08.076. Epub 2010 Aug 31.

Signal enhancement and suppression during visual-spatial selective attention

J W Couperus  1 , G R Mangun
Affiliations

Signal enhancement and suppression during visual-spatial selective attention

J W Couperus et al. Brain Res. .

Abstract

Selective attention involves the relative enhancement of relevant versus irrelevant stimuli. However, whether this relative enhancement involves primarily enhancement of attended stimuli, or suppression of irrelevant stimuli, remains controversial. Moreover, if both enhancement and suppression are involved, whether they result from a single mechanism or separate mechanisms during attentional control or selection is not known. In two experiments using a spatial cuing paradigm with task-relevant targets and irrelevant distractors, target, and distractor processing was examined as a function of distractor expectancy. Additionally, in the second study the interaction of perceptual load and distractor expectancy was explored. In both experiments, distractors were either validly cued (70%) or invalidly cued (30%) in order to examine the effects of distractor expectancy on attentional control as well as target and distractor processing. The effects of distractor expectancy were assessed using event-related potentials recorded during the cue-to-target period (preparatory attention) and in response to the task-relevant target stimuli (selective stimulus processing). Analyses of distractor-present displays (anticipated versus unanticipated), showed modulations in brain activity during both the preparatory period and during target processing. The pattern of brain responses suggest both facilitation of attended targets and suppression of unattended distractors. These findings provide evidence for a two-process model of visual-spatial selective attention, where one mechanism (facilitation) influences relevant stimuli and another (suppression) acts to filter distracting stimuli.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Experiment 1. Selective attention task stimulus displays.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Experiment 1. Reaction times to target stimulus.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Experiment 1. ERPs to cues directing attention as a function of cue type at O1/O2 showing a significantly stronger negative peak when a cue to the right also indicated a distractor would be present.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Experiment 1. ERPs to cues directing attention (collapsed across cue type: indication of distractor presence) show Late Preparatory Activity at F7/F8 reflecting significant attention effects.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Experiment 1. ERPs to cues at F7 when the cue indicated a distractor would or would not be present.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Experiment 1. Effects of distractor anticipation on attention effects at the P1 in occipital leads (O1/O2) (all attention effects significant at P1).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Experiment 1. Effect of distractor anticipation on stimulus processing at occipital leads (O1/O2) as a function of the direction of attention (all effects significant at P1).
Figure 8
Figure 8
Experiment 2. Reaction times to target stimuli.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Experiment 2. ERPs to cues directing attention (collapsed across cue type: indication of distractor presence) demonstrating a) significant affects of attention in late preparatory activity at frontal leads F7/F8, F3a/F4a, F3/F4, b) significant attention effects in early preparatory activity at occipital leads O1i/O2i, TO1/TO2.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Experiment 2. ERPs to cues directing attention (collapsed across cue type: indication of distractor presence) demonstrating a) significant affects of attention in late preparatory activity at frontal leads F7/F8, F3a/F4a, F3/F4, b) significant attention effects in early preparatory activity at occipital leads O1i/O2i, TO1/TO2.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Experiment 2. Effects of distractor anticipation on late preparatory activity at F3a demonstrating significant attention effects when a distractor was anticipated.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Experiment 2. Effects of perceptual load on late preparatory activity at F3 demonstrating significant attention effects at high perceptual load.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Experiment 2. Frequent Distractor Epoch: Effects of distractor frequency on attention showing significant attention effects at P1 and N1 at occipital leads TO1/TO2, O1/O2, O1i/O2i, PO1/PO2 (collapsed across perceptual load).
Figure 12
Figure 12
Experiment 2. Frequent Distractor Epoch: Effects of distractor frequency on attention showing significant attention effects at P1 and N1 at occipital leads TO1/TO2, O1/O2, O1i/O2i, PO1/PO2 (collapsed across perceptual load).
Figure 13
Figure 13
Experiment 2. Infrequent Epoch: Effects of Distractor Frequency on Stimulus Processing showing significant attention effects at Occipital Leads TO1/TO2, O1/O2, O1i/O2i, PO1/PO2 (collapsed across perceptual load).
Figure 13
Figure 13
Experiment 2. Infrequent Epoch: Effects of Distractor Frequency on Stimulus Processing showing significant attention effects at Occipital Leads TO1/TO2, O1/O2, O1i/O2i, PO1/PO2 (collapsed across perceptual load).
Figure 14
Figure 14
Experiment 2. Effects of distractor anticipation on stimulus processing at P1 for occipital leads (TO1/TO2 representative electrodes with significant effects at P1).
Figure 15
Figure 15
Experiment 2. Effect of perceptual load on stimulus processing at N1 for occipital leads (O1/O2) showing significant attention effects at high perceptual load.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Awh E, Matsukura M, Serences JT. Top-Down Control Over Biased Competition During Covert Spatial Orienting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2003;29(1):52–63. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.52. - PubMed
    1. Barnhardt J, Ritter W, Gomes H. Perceptual load affects spatial and nonspatial visual selection processes: An event-related potential study. Neuropsychologia. 2008;46:2071–2078. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.02.007. - PubMed
    1. Beck D, M, Kastner S. Top-down and bottom-up mechanisms in biasing competition in the human brain. Vision Research. 2009;49:1154–1165. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2008.07.012. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bles M, Schwarzbach J, De Weerd P, Goebel R, Jansma BM. Receptive field size-dependent attention effects in simultaneously presented stimulus displays. NeuroImage. 2006;30(2):506–511. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.09.042. - PubMed
    1. Braithwaite JJ, Humphreys GW, Hulleman J. Color-based grouping and inhibition in visual search: Evidence from a probe detection analysis of preview search. Perception and Psychophysics. 2005;67(1):81–101. - PubMed

Publication types