Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PY2N > SPRING Attention > Flashcards

SPRING Attention Flashcards

1
Q

what is attention

A

no absolute certainty of what it is
measures alertness and arousal on a continuum
implies withdrawal from something to engage effectively with others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

types of attention

A

alertness and arousal
vigilance
selective attention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

describe alterness and arousal

A

extract certain info from enviorn or select a specific response
continuum of consciousness
ie coma - full alert

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

describe vigilance

A

sustained alertness to a specific stimulus/event despite enviornmental stimuli

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

describe selective attention

A

ability to scan event/stimuli and notice those that are relevant
filter stimuli to focus on those that relate to current goals and needs
limited processing of unattended info

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

why is selective attention needed

A

brain is limited resource - need to filter irrelevant info and preferentially process those relevant to current goal/survival for enhanced processing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what is hemispatial neglect

A

in inattention to the contralateral to the lesion
not due to primary sensory or motor deficit
not hemianopia
80% RHD and 40% permanent damage
82% more likely following RHD>LHD
may have comorbidity with other visual and motor impairments BUT not a result of motor or sensory deficit ie hemianopia

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

how is hemispatial neglect cause

chatteree 2003

A

damage to right/left hemisphere often due to stroke
deprives inferior parietal lobule and superior temporal gyrus to middle cerebellar artery that results in contralesional inattention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

main characteristics of hemispatial neglect

A

anosognosia (so dont develop compensatory strategies)
cant orient to contralesional side
dont notice people on contralesional side
lower quality of life
behavioural deficits are dependent on severity of damage to certain areas of the brain

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

object copying in hemispatial neglect

A

patients find difficult to copy whole image
miss details contralesional to damage
clock - still draw full circle as represented in motor memotry/procedural

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

describe Bisiach and Luzzatti 1978 hemispatial neglect

A

milan residents
describe plaza del duomo from two perspectives
not problem of memory or vision
neglect contralesional side despite recollection from an alternative perspective
inattention is an internal problem of representation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

describe corbetta and shulman 2011 hemispatial neglect

A

probability of reporing an obect to contralesional side is dependent on the no of distractors (cancellation tasks) and the level of meaning (drawing tasks)
ie prefer house not on fire but report that both houses look the same

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

spotlight metaphor of attention

posner 1978

A

focus on main stimuli and ignore surrounding

pay attention to a specific sensory channel - increase energy of said stimulus ie perception of brightness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

describe the posner cuing task

A

fixate centrally then presented with cue to left or right that directs attention towards that area
valid cue: target follows same side as cue (100%)
invalid cue: target may or may not follow cue (50%)
null cue: no target following cue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

describe posner 1980

A

posner cuing task
predictive cue directs attention covertly
RT inrease when follow cue location but decrease when invalid
improvement in atention for valid is because attention already allocated towards spatial location whreas invalid requires shift in attention to opposite side

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

describe bartolomeo and chockron 2002 hemispatial neglect on posner

A

does predictive cue direct attention to left and help orientation
YES - can detect stimuli in the left visual field almost as quickly asfor the right
BUT - difficulty orienting to left and disengaging attention from the ipsilateral side when the cue is invalid

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

what ERP waves link to attention

A 
when attend to stimulus
VEP waves (visually evoked potentials) and N1 P1 and P2 increase in response 
early processing of attended stimulus = increase p1n1 but ignored still being processed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

define spatial attention

A

the process by which objects in certain spatial

locations are selected for processing over objects in other spatial locations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

hillyard et al 1998 ERP and attention

A

Directing attention to the location of a stimulus results in amplitude enhancement of the P1 and N1 with little/no change in component latencies or scalp distributions- spatial attention exerts gain control or selective amplification of sensory information flow in the visual pathways between 80 and 200 ms after stimulus onset
Stimuli at attended locations elicit larger P1/N1 than unattended `

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

driver et al 2002 attending to spatial or feature

A

If attention could only select space, neglect patients should be able to identify the figure in the right picture but not in the left
But they can!
Neglect impairs spatial attention only, and shows that attention can select at the object/featural level

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Anllo Vento and Hillyard 1996 Feature vs spatial VEP

A

VEP wave activity manipulating spatial and feature
- fixate on cross and different coloured targets - measure response to appearance of stimulus varying in colour (blue.red) motion(horiz.vertical) or spatial location
told to attend to spatial location and feature and only respond when they corresponded
- if dissociate the two then show diff VEP response

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

anllo vento and hillyard 1996 feature vs spatial VEPs results

A

found a boost in VEP response to spatial location
but not to feature ie colour/motion (p1n1)
selection negativity:
VEP that was increased when the attended feature appeared in the attended location
selection negativity (sn) increase when attended but not unattended feature appear - enhanced processing of the critical feature, rather than indiscriminate amplification that results from spatial attention
- enhanced processing of specific features despite amplification from spatial location

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

mechanism for attentional boost - multiplicative gain

A

attention increases response gain by multiplying the response by a factor
therefore - when attend to a stimulus, attention doubled compared to baseline

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

mechanism for attentional boost - additive gain

A

attention adds to the signal increase of responding to the stimulus the same as it would for baseline - creates a baseline shift

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

describe kastner et al 1999 additive attentional gain theory

A

attend: count no times pre specified image appear
expectation: prior to attention, covertly attend to location when stimulus will appear
unattend: ignore stimuli
BL: no stimuli
critical condition: EXP vs BL
look at v1 - v4 & TEO - areas in brain visual pathway that process visually presented information

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

results kastner et al 1999 additive attentional gain theory

A

unattend vs baseline: regions respond to stimuli without specific manipulation of attention
exp vs BL: pre attention vs no attention: same area activation but more in exp (no stimuli actually presented)
- attention selects from external world for further procesing - additive gain

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

what does the research overall show on the mechanisms of attention

A

neglect - disorder in the ability to disengage and redirect attention from the ipselesional to the contralesional side of space
objec and spatial attention increase neuronal response when stimulus appear AND shifts baseline activity in preperation for a stimulus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

describe moran and desimone 1985 neuronal response to stimuli

A

HOW does attention filted desired from undesired stimuli
single cell recording of visual cortex (v4) in monkeys
trained to attend covertly to stimuli in one location and ignore others (match to sample task)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

what does moran and desimone 1985 suggest

A

unwanted info is filtered from the receptive field of neurons in the extrastriate cortex as a result of selective attention
cell response is determined by the properties of attention

30
Q

bottom up attention (exo)

A

employed automatically in response to salient stimuli

characteristics of a scene/stimulus salience reflects sensory stimulation

31
Q

top down attention (endo)

A

voluntary attentional control based on knowledge, expectation, task or goals
internally generated attentino

32
Q

describe de fockert et al 2004 exogenous attention

A

attentional capture - stimulus salience
manipulated the shape/colour/size of target and distractor singletons
1- target identified by diff shape and colour
2- target only diff shape
3- target diff shape but distractor diff colour(same shape)
4 - no change in colour but distractor smaller

33
Q

de fockert et al 2004 exo attention results

A

presence/absence of salient coloured distractor singleton associ with increased attention in
left+right superior parietal lobe, left lateral precentral gyrus (assoc with frontal activation)
RT sig increase when colour distractor - longer to detect target

34
Q

if exo and endo part of the same system

yantis 1998

A

Should demonstrate the same functional characteristics
May differ quantitatively (in magnitude or time-course), but not qualitatively
Modulate similar stages of processing
Should be implemented into the same brain circuits

35
Q

if exo and endo diff system

klien 2009

A

Qualitative differences between them
Modulate different stages of processing
Evidence for a double dissociation
Should be implemented in brain circuits which may have overlap, but should contain exclusivity for each

36
Q

describe kincade et al 2005 exo vs endo

A

pps focus on fixation cross -

exo: grid of on unique colour singleton then respond to presence of target - 50% predictive
neutral: grid of many colours and respond to target - to% predictive
endo: grid of many colours then fixation cross brightened into arrow indication cue for target - 75% predictive

37
Q

behavioural results kincade et al 2005 exo vs endo

A

look at cue-target stimulus onset asynchronies (SOA) - either 150 or 700ms

exo: RT increase between 150 >700ms when target valid vs inalid (even though unpredictive)
endo: RT sig longer on invalid than valid trial - using spatial cue and cue more effective for long vs short SOA - greater benefit from cue when they have sufficient time to process it

38
Q

neuro results kincade et al 2005 exo vs endo

A

dorsal and ventral frontoparietal regions
-Endogenous = larger preparatory activity in FEF and IPS (dorsal frontoparietal regions)
Exogenous = occipitotemporal regions and FEF
Partly overlapping but distinct
neural circuits

39
Q

corbetta et al 2002

A

showed 2 distinct networks for endo vs. exo
When attention shifted - VENTRAL set of brain regions within the fronto-parietal network engaged (TPJ, VFC
When attention was sustained at a location/feature - DORSAL set of brain regions were engaged (FEF, IPS)
partially segregated but interact

40
Q

research (corbetta et al) show that the dorsal attention network is in control of

A

top down, endogenous attentional control

41
Q

research (corbetta et al) shwo that the ventral attention netwrk is in control of

A

bottom-up, exogenous attentional control

42
Q

what is the primary means by which humans sample their environment (findlay and gilchrist 2003)

A

by saccadic eyemovements and fixations using occulomotor control

43
Q

what areas in the brain contribute to occulomotor control

A

dorsal

FEF and lateral intraparietal area(LIP)

44
Q

describe nobre et al 2000 covert vs overt visual attention

A

covert:
like posner - fixation cue for invalid/valid target
saccade task - target move left/right and must follow and fix

45
Q

fmri results nobre et al 200 covert vs overt visual attention

A

areas for shiftting spatial attention via saccades activates overlapping neural circuits to that of covert - parietal and frontal regions
covert expectancy increases activation to occumomotor condition - attention engage sensorimotor areas independent of overt movement

46
Q

premotor theory of attention

rizzolatti et al 1987

A

spatial attention and eyemovement are interdependent
attentional shifts can be performed independent of eye movements and vise versa
dorsal network and occulomotor of brain interact to shift focus
but covert - shift without eye movement

47
Q

FEF and covert attention

A

part f frontoparietal network for attentional control
occulomotor control for planning and saccade execution
when stimulate - saccade contralateral to hemisphere
increase activity in attention w/o overt eye movements to location

48
Q

describe moore and fallah 2004

A

microstimulation to FEF controls spotlight of attention - apply and saccade to location
monkeys to detect siming of target in specifi location and ignore distractors
prior to dimming - microstimulation in FEF to sbthreshold level (covert attention)

49
Q

results moore and fallah 2004

A

microstimulation to target = increased ability to detect dimming target
do not need cue - stimulation allows direct shift of attention
FEF in control of where attention is directed

50
Q

define overt attention

A

focus that coincides with sensory orientation ie gaze

51
Q

define covert attention

A

focus independent of sensory orientation but remain alert to the sitmuli

52
Q

behtmann et al 1997 hemispatial neglect

A

equal amount of saccadic eye movements across the visual field despite a sig bias towards right on line bisection

53
Q

laduras paladine and cubeline 1998 hemispatial neglect priming

A

word on neglect side not reported but leads to fater response to words semantically related to it

54
Q

heilman and van den abell 1980 hemispatial neglect EEG

A

trace alpha wave desynchronisation which reflects cortical stimulation
LEFT parietal lobe activate to stimuli on RIGHT hemispace
RIGHT parietal lobe exhibits equal distribution of activity across the visual field

55
Q

what is representational neglect

A

neglect is not just manifest in attention to the external world but in internal representations of the world ie memory for it

56
Q

types of hemispatial neglect tests

A

object copying/drawing from memory
line bisection
visual search task

57
Q

describe line bisection HN

A

asked to bisect centre of line

tend to deviate towards the right

58
Q

describe visual search task HN

A

cancel/idenfity targets within a visual display
may incorporate distractord ei letters, stars, digits, bells
stars most sensitive
neglect fail to identify targets to the left of the display

59
Q

Marshall and halligan 1988 HN burning house

A

show two hoses - one burning to the left

HN patients chose right>left as say prefer but fail to report that one not chosen is burning

60
Q

describe space based theories of attention

A

space is the primary unit for attentional selection
attention selects a region of space independent of the objects that they contain
ie spotlight metaphor (posner 1978)

61
Q

what brain regions are thought to be involved in attention

A

temporoparietal junction
superior colliculus
pulvinar (thallamus)
FEF

62
Q

TPJ in attention

A

disengages attention from current stimulus/orientation

63
Q

superior colliculus in attention

A

determined the reflexive shifts towards bottom up stimuli

64
Q

pulvinar/thallamus in attention

A

egages attention towards a spatial location

65
Q

FEF in attention

A

voluntary attentional shift that may also act to inhibit the reflexive shifts in attention by the superior colliculus

66
Q

describe object based models of attention

A

propose that grouping mechanisms divide the attentional field across stimuli
attentional selection is determined by the no objects in the visual field

67
Q

neisser 1967 two stage process of object based attention

A

visual field pre attentively seperated into perceptual units according to gestalt processess ie based on similarity or proximity
once attention is directed, focal attention processess al features of an object regardless of spatial location

68
Q

duncan 1984 evidence for object based theory of attention

A

observers given two overlapping objects with two attributes
- line (dotted or dashed) and box (large or small)
discrimination between the obects less accurate when report attributes of two diff objects than of two of the same objects

69
Q

moran and desimone 1985 results

A

attend to effective or ineffective stimuli in task to determine if stimuli presented in the same or diff lcoation
effective and ineffective in receptive field : call respond strong to effective
multiple stimuli in receptive field : neuronal response determined by effetive stimuli
over half the usual response when ignore effective stimuli in receptive field
ineffective cue outside receptive field - no response
- attention atenuate processing of relevant > irrelevant stimuli

70
Q

mangun and hillyard 1991 neural basis of spatial attention using ERPS

A

central cues direct towards of away from peripheral targets
detect or make choice discriminations about targets appeared in covertly attended/unattended locations
p1 > attended targets in both detection and discrimination
n1> oly for disciminaion of targets
spatial attention facilitates sensory gail control - enhance processing assoc with sensory signals in attend locaiton

71
Q

jonides 1981 endo and exo control

A

test interdependent of endo and exo attention control
centrally presented directional cue - arrow at fix or peripherall presented locational cue - arrow at adjecent location
visual search in letter display - RT to central cues slowed when Wm task consume attention
cueing effect persistent when ignore peripheral>central
cueing effect modulated by relative proportion of central cues but not peripheral

72
Q

bourgeois et al 2015 endo/exo

A

visual search paradigm using monetary rewards
one of two distractors assoc with high reward (80%) or low reward (20%)
peripheral cue either 80% predictive of target (endo) or 50% (exo)
distractors 25% of time
distractors with prev assoc high monetary reward increase attentional priority even though no loner relevant
- competitive shifts in attention

PY2N (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions