A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal
Differential activation of frontoparietal attention networks by social and symbolic spatial cues
Authors: Engell AD, Nummenmaa L, Oosterhof NN, Henson RN, Haxby JV, Calder AJ
Publisher: OXFORD UNIV PRESS
Publication year: 2010
Journal: Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
Journal name in source: SOCIAL COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE NEUROSCIENCE
Journal acronym: SOC COGN AFFECT NEUR
Volume: 5
Issue: 4
First page : 432
Last page: 440
Number of pages: 9
ISSN: 1749-5016
eISSN: 1749-5024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq008
Web address : https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/5/4/432/1624050
Abstract
Perception of both gaze-direction and symbolic directional cues (e.g. arrows) orient an observer's attention toward the indicated location. It is unclear, however, whether these similar behavioral effects are examples of the same attentional phenomenon and, therefore, subserved by the same neural substrate. It has been proposed that gaze, given its evolutionary significance, constitutes a 'special' category of spatial cue. As such, it is predicted that the neural systems supporting spatial reorienting will be different for gaze than for non-biological symbols. We tested this prediction using functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure the brain's response during target localization in which laterally presented targets were preceded by uninformative gaze or arrow cues. Reaction times were faster during valid than invalid trials for both arrow and gaze cues. However, differential patterns of activity were evoked in the brain. Trials including invalid rather than valid arrow cues resulted in a stronger hemodynamic response in the ventral attention network. No such difference was seen during trials including valid and invalid gaze cues. This differential engagement of the ventral reorienting network is consistent with the notion that the facilitation of target detection by gaze cues and arrow cues is subserved by different neural substrates.
Perception of both gaze-direction and symbolic directional cues (e.g. arrows) orient an observer's attention toward the indicated location. It is unclear, however, whether these similar behavioral effects are examples of the same attentional phenomenon and, therefore, subserved by the same neural substrate. It has been proposed that gaze, given its evolutionary significance, constitutes a 'special' category of spatial cue. As such, it is predicted that the neural systems supporting spatial reorienting will be different for gaze than for non-biological symbols. We tested this prediction using functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure the brain's response during target localization in which laterally presented targets were preceded by uninformative gaze or arrow cues. Reaction times were faster during valid than invalid trials for both arrow and gaze cues. However, differential patterns of activity were evoked in the brain. Trials including invalid rather than valid arrow cues resulted in a stronger hemodynamic response in the ventral attention network. No such difference was seen during trials including valid and invalid gaze cues. This differential engagement of the ventral reorienting network is consistent with the notion that the facilitation of target detection by gaze cues and arrow cues is subserved by different neural substrates.
UTU Research Portal