Applying an attentional set to perceived and remembered features.
Applying an attentional set to perceived and remembered features.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0007613
复制
发表时间：
2009-10-29
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Scerif G
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Astle DE;Nobre AC;Scerif G
先前的研究已经检验了我们选择性地关注感知对象的特定特征的能力，以及我们从关注一种特征切换到另一种特征的能力。这通常是在预期注意力设定控制的背景下完成的，将参与者准备注意与先前试验相同的刺激特征（“任务停留”试验）时所涉及的神经机制与参与者准备注意与先前参加的不同刺激特征（“任务切换”试验）时所需的神经机制进行比较。我们想要确定参与者在关注视觉短期记忆（VSTM）中所保存的物体特征时如何回顾性地维持或切换注意力集。我们发现，相对于回顾性地维持注意力设定而言，切换与绩效成本相关，而绩效成本可以随着时间的推移而降低。这种控制过程反映在事件相关脑电位（ERP）的顶叶和额叶振幅差异以及切换和停留试验之间全局场功率（GFP）的显着差异。然而，当考虑到开关/停留 GFP 差异，从而控制这种幅度差异时，我们无法从地形上区分这些试验类型。相比之下，我们发现准备基于特征的预期注意力集与在 VSTM 中回顾性应用它之间存在明显的地形差异。这些互补的拓扑和振幅分析表明，预期和回顾性设定控制招募了潜在神经发生器的质的不同配置。相比之下，切换/停留差异很大程度上是定量的，它们的差异主要在于幅度而不是地形方面。
Previous research has examined our ability to attend selectively to particular features of perceptual objects, as well as our ability to switch from attending to one type of feature to another. This is usually done in the context of anticipatory attentional-set control, comparing the neural mechanisms involved as participants prepare to attend to the same stimulus feature as on the previous trial (“task-stay” trials) with those required as participants prepare to attend to a different stimulus feature to that previously attended (“task-switch” trials). We wanted to establish how participants maintain or switch attentional set retrospectively, as they attend to features of objects held in visual short-term memory (VSTM). We found that switching, relative to maintaining attentional set retrospectively, was associated with a performance cost, which can be reduced over time. This control process was mirrored by a large parietal and frontal amplitude difference in the event-related brain potentials (ERPs) and significant differences in global field power (GFP) between switch and stay trials. However, when taking into account the switch/stay GFP differences, thereby controlling for this difference in amplitude, we could not distinguish these trial types topographically. By contrast, we found clear topographic differences between preparing an anticipatory feature-based attentional set versus applying it retrospectively within VSTM. These complementary topographical and amplitude analyses suggested that anticipatory and retrospective set control recruited a qualitatively different configuration of underlying neural generators. In contrast, switch/stay differences were largely quantitative, with them differing primarily in terms of amplitude rather than topography.