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
. 2014 Jun;24(6):1436-50.
doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhs418. Epub 2013 Jan 14.

Spatial attention, precision, and Bayesian inference: a study of saccadic response speed

Affiliations

Spatial attention, precision, and Bayesian inference: a study of saccadic response speed

Simone Vossel et al. Cereb Cortex. 2014 Jun.

Abstract

Inferring the environment's statistical structure and adapting behavior accordingly is a fundamental modus operandi of the brain. A simple form of this faculty based on spatial attentional orienting can be studied with Posner's location-cueing paradigm in which a cue indicates the target location with a known probability. The present study focuses on a more complex version of this task, where probabilistic context (percentage of cue validity) changes unpredictably over time, thereby creating a volatile environment. Saccadic response speed (RS) was recorded in 15 subjects and used to estimate subject-specific parameters of a Bayesian learning scheme modeling the subjects' trial-by-trial updates of beliefs. Different response models-specifying how computational states translate into observable behavior-were compared using Bayesian model selection. Saccadic RS was most plausibly explained as a function of the precision of the belief about the causes of sensory input. This finding is in accordance with current Bayesian theories of brain function, and specifically with the proposal that spatial attention is mediated by a precision-dependent gain modulation of sensory input. Our results provide empirical support for precision-dependent changes in beliefs about saccade target locations and motivate future neuroimaging and neuropharmacological studies of how Bayesian inference may determine spatial attention.

Keywords: cue validity; hierarchical models; variational Bayes; visuospatial processing; volatility.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Illustration of the experimental task and the manipulation of %CV over the 612 trials.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Graphical illustration of the perceptual (generative) model with states x1, x2, and x3. The model parameters ω and formula image impact on the time course of subjects' inferred belief about the states x and are estimated from the individual subject RS data. Circles represent constants, while diamonds represent quantities that change in time (i.e., that carry a time (or trial) index). Hexagons, like diamonds, represent quantities that change in time but that additionally depend on their previous state in time in a Markovian fashion.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Illustration of the relationship between RS (inverse RT) and the quantity formula image, representing the amount of attentional resources allocated to the cued location. For each response model, RS were assumed to be linearly related to formula image (which differs between the 3 models, see Appendix). Note the opposite behaviour of RS for increasing formula image on valid (black line and equation) and invalid (gray line and equation) trials (cf. eq. 5).
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Illustration of the amount of attentional resources formula image for the 3 different theoretical response models as a function of formula image.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
(A) Average RS in valid and invalid trials for the 3 (true) %CV levels. Error bars depict standard errors of the mean (SEM) (B) Illustration of how the observed RS costs after invalid cueing translate into RT differences (in ms).
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
(A) Illustration of the subject-specific patterns for the values of the volatility estimate ω and the meta-volatility estimate formula image. (B) Illustration of minimal and maximal RS (as derived from the response model parameters ζ1 (averaged for valid and invalid trials) and ζ2) in relation to overall (mean) RS. The symbols single and double asterisks denote the data from subjects A and B depicted in Figure 8, respectively.
Figure 7.
Figure 7.
Relationship between the perceptual parameters ω and formula image, and the Rescorla–Wagner learning rate ε.
Figure 8.
Figure 8.
Illustration of the time course of μ3 (upper panels) and s(μ2) (lower panels) during observation of x1 (black diamonds) for 2 exemplary subjects with different parameters for ω and formula image. The true %CV is depicted as a dotted line. It can be seen that subject A (ω = −6.09; formula image) shows slower updating of the probability estimate that the target will appear at the cued location than subject B (ω = −2.78; formula image). This can be attributed to subject A's lower value of ω (reflecting the subject's belief in a less volatile environment).
Figure 9.
Figure 9.
(A) Observed and predicted average RS in valid and invalid trials as a function of the precision-dependent attentional weight parameter formula image (attention to cued location; calculated for the group average values). Error bars depict standard errors of the mean (SEM). The lines correspond to the predictions using the average response model parameters, over subjects. (B) Illustration of how the observed RS costs after invalid cueing translate into RT differences (in ms).

Comment in

References

    1. Anderson AJ, Carpenter RHS. Changes in expectation consequent on experience, modeled by a simple, forgetful neural circuit. J Vis. 2006;6:822–835. - PubMed
    1. Bastos A, Moran R, Litvak V, Fries P, Friston K. A Dynamic Causal Model of how inter-areal synchronization is achieved in canonical microcircuits. 2011. Program No. 622.16. NeuroscienceMeeting Planner. Society for Neuroscience, Washington, DC. (Online)
    1. Beauchamp MS, Petit L, Ellmore TM, Ingeholm J, Haxby JV. A parametric fMRI study of overt and covert shifts of visuospatial attention. Neuroimage. 2001;14:310–321. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0788. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Behrens TE, Woolrich MW, Walton ME, Rushworth MF. Learning the value of information in an uncertain world. Nat Neurosci. 2007;10:1214–1221. doi: 10.1038/nn1954. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bestmann S, Harrison LM, Blankenburg F, Mars RB, Haggard P, Friston KJ, Rothwell JC. Influence of uncertainty and surprise on human corticospinal excitability during preparation for action. Curr Biol. 2008;18:775–780. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.04.051. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types