The Experts below are selected from a list of 19749 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Pascal W. M. Van Gerven - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
selective attention and Sensory Modality in aging curses and blessings
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2016Co-Authors: Pascal W. M. Van Gerven, Maria J. S. GuerreiroAbstract:The notion that selective attention is compromised in older adults as a result of impaired inhibitory control is well established. Yet it is primarily based on empirical findings covering the visual Modality. Auditory and, especially, cross-modal selective attention are remarkably underexposed in the literature on aging. In the past five years, we have attempted to fill these voids by investigating performance of younger and older adults on equivalent tasks covering all four combinations of visual or auditory target, and visual or auditory distractor information. In doing so, we have demonstrated that older adults are especially impaired in auditory selective attention with visual distraction. This pattern of results was not mirrored by the results from our psychophysiological studies, however, in which both enhancement of target processing and suppression of distractor processing appeared to be age equivalent. We currently conclude that (1) age-related differences of selective attention are Modality dependent, (2) age-related differences of selective attention are limited, and (3) it remains an open question whether Modality-specific age differences in selective attention are due to impaired distractor inhibition, impaired target enhancement, or both. These conclusions put the longstanding inhibitory deficit hypothesis of aging in a new perspective.
-
Aging and response interference across Sensory modalities.
Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2013Co-Authors: Maria J. S. Guerreiro, Jos J. Adam, Pascal W. M. Van GervenAbstract:Advancing age is associated with decrements in selective attention. It was recently hypothesized that age-related differences in selective attention depend on Sensory Modality. The goal of the present study was to investigate the role of Sensory Modality in age-related vulnerability to distraction, using a response interference task. To this end, 16 younger (mean age = 23.1 years) and 24 older (mean age = 65.3 years) adults performed four response interference tasks, involving all combinations of visual and auditory targets and distractors. The results showed that response interference effects differ across Sensory modalities, but not across age groups. These results indicate that Sensory Modality plays an important role in vulnerability to distraction, but not in age-related distractibility by irrelevant spatial information.
-
Making sense of age-related distractibility: the critical role of Sensory Modality.
Acta psychologica, 2013Co-Authors: Maria J. S. Guerreiro, Dana R. Murphy, Pascal W. M. Van GervenAbstract:Older adults are known to have reduced inhibitory control and therefore to be more distractible than young adults. Recently, we have proposed that Sensory Modality plays a crucial role in age-related distractibility. In this study, we examined age differences in vulnerability to unimodal and cross-modal visual and auditory distraction. A group of 24 younger (mean age=21.7years) and 22 older adults (mean age=65.4years) performed visual and auditory n-back tasks while ignoring visual and auditory distraction. Whereas reaction time data indicated that both young and older adults are particularly affected by unimodal distraction, accuracy data revealed that older adults, but not younger adults, are vulnerable to cross-modal visual distraction. These results support the notion that age-related distractibility is Modality dependent. Keywords: Driver distraction; Language: en
-
Automatic Selective Attention as a Function of Sensory Modality in Aging
The journals of gerontology. Series B Psychological sciences and social sciences, 2011Co-Authors: Maria J. S. Guerreiro, Jos J. Adam, Pascal W. M. Van GervenAbstract:CCORDING to a recent hypothesis, age-related dif-ferences in selective attention are Modality depen-dent (Guerreiro, Murphy, & Van Gerven, 2010; Guerreiro & Van Gerven, 2011). Specifically, this hypothesis predicts that age-related deficits are most likely to arise in tasks that require suppressing unimodal rather than cross-modal distraction and in tasks that require suppressing visual dis-traction, regardless of the relevant Modality (Figure 1).Evidence for a critical role of Sensory Modality in age-related distractibility comes from a comparative review of experimental paradigms by Sensory Modality of relevant and irrelevant information (Guerreiro et al., 2010). Within unimodal selective attention, older adults have long been shown to be more vulnerable to distraction than younger adults in several tasks, including visual and auditory variants of the Stroop task (e.g., Wurm, Labouvie-Vief, Aycock, Rebucal, & Koch, 2004), visual and auditory versions of the Simon tasks (e.g., Pick & Proctor, 1999), and in both reading-with-distraction (e.g., Connelly, Hasher, & Zacks, 1991) and listening-in-noise paradigms (e.g., Tun, O’Kane, & Wingfield, 2002).Age-related differences in cross-modal selective atten-tion have been considerably less investigated thus far. Recently, however, an interesting Modality-specific asym-metry in age-related distractibility has been demonstrated in our laboratory (Guerreiro & Van Gerven, 2011). We compared age-related differences in cross-modal visual and auditory selective attention by using equivalent tasks across modalities. The results of this study showed that older adults were more vulnerable than younger adults to cross-modal visual distraction, whereas there were no age differences with respect to cross-modal auditory distraction.This distinct pattern of age-related differences in selective attention may be linked to the reliance of visual and audi-tory modalities on distinct filtering mechanisms (Guerreiro et al., 2010). Specifically, auditory distraction appears to be filtered out at both central (e.g., auditory cortex) and periph-eral (e.g., cochlea) neurocognitive levels (Giard, Fort, Mouchetant-Rostaing, & Pernier, 2000), with central filtering likely occurring when some aspects of the auditory stream need to be attended (i.e., unimodal auditory selective atten-tion) and peripheral filtering likely occurring when the entire auditory Modality can be shut off (i.e., cross-modal visual attention). In contrast, visual distraction appears to be primarily suppressed at more central levels of processing (e.g., visual cortex; Kanwisher & Wojciulik, 2000), regard-less of whether some aspects of the visual stream need to be attended (i.e., unimodal visual selective attention) or the whole visual Modality can be shut off (i.e., cross-modal auditory attention). Arguably, the higher distraction gets in the processing stream, the stronger its deleterious effects for
-
the role of Sensory Modality in age related distraction a critical review and a renewed view
Psychological Bulletin, 2010Co-Authors: Maria J. S. Guerreiro, Dana R. Murphy, Pascal W. M. Van GervenAbstract:Selective attention requires the ability to focus on relevant information and to ignore irrelevant information. The ability to inhibit irrelevant information has been proposed to be the main source of age-related cognitive change (e.g., Hasher & Zacks, 1988). Although age-related distraction by irrelevant information has been extensively demonstrated in the visual Modality, studies involving auditory and cross-modal paradigms have revealed a mixed pattern of results. A comparative evaluation of these paradigms according to Sensory Modality suggests a twofold trend: Age-related distraction is more likely (a) in unimodal than in cross-modal paradigms and (b) when irrelevant information is presented in the visual Modality, rather than in the auditory Modality. This distinct pattern of age-related changes in selective attention may be linked to the reliance of the visual and auditory modalities on different filtering mechanisms. Distractors presented through the auditory Modality can be filtered at both central and peripheral neurocognitive levels. In contrast, distractors presented through the visual Modality are primarily suppressed at more central levels of processing, which may be more vulnerable to aging. We propose the hypothesis that age-related distractibility is Modality dependent, a notion that might need to be incorporated in current theories of cognitive aging. Ultimately, this might lead to a more accurate account for the mixed pattern of impaired and preserved selective attention found in advancing age.
Maria J. S. Guerreiro - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
selective attention and Sensory Modality in aging curses and blessings
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2016Co-Authors: Pascal W. M. Van Gerven, Maria J. S. GuerreiroAbstract:The notion that selective attention is compromised in older adults as a result of impaired inhibitory control is well established. Yet it is primarily based on empirical findings covering the visual Modality. Auditory and, especially, cross-modal selective attention are remarkably underexposed in the literature on aging. In the past five years, we have attempted to fill these voids by investigating performance of younger and older adults on equivalent tasks covering all four combinations of visual or auditory target, and visual or auditory distractor information. In doing so, we have demonstrated that older adults are especially impaired in auditory selective attention with visual distraction. This pattern of results was not mirrored by the results from our psychophysiological studies, however, in which both enhancement of target processing and suppression of distractor processing appeared to be age equivalent. We currently conclude that (1) age-related differences of selective attention are Modality dependent, (2) age-related differences of selective attention are limited, and (3) it remains an open question whether Modality-specific age differences in selective attention are due to impaired distractor inhibition, impaired target enhancement, or both. These conclusions put the longstanding inhibitory deficit hypothesis of aging in a new perspective.
-
Aging and response interference across Sensory modalities.
Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2013Co-Authors: Maria J. S. Guerreiro, Jos J. Adam, Pascal W. M. Van GervenAbstract:Advancing age is associated with decrements in selective attention. It was recently hypothesized that age-related differences in selective attention depend on Sensory Modality. The goal of the present study was to investigate the role of Sensory Modality in age-related vulnerability to distraction, using a response interference task. To this end, 16 younger (mean age = 23.1 years) and 24 older (mean age = 65.3 years) adults performed four response interference tasks, involving all combinations of visual and auditory targets and distractors. The results showed that response interference effects differ across Sensory modalities, but not across age groups. These results indicate that Sensory Modality plays an important role in vulnerability to distraction, but not in age-related distractibility by irrelevant spatial information.
-
Making sense of age-related distractibility: the critical role of Sensory Modality.
Acta psychologica, 2013Co-Authors: Maria J. S. Guerreiro, Dana R. Murphy, Pascal W. M. Van GervenAbstract:Older adults are known to have reduced inhibitory control and therefore to be more distractible than young adults. Recently, we have proposed that Sensory Modality plays a crucial role in age-related distractibility. In this study, we examined age differences in vulnerability to unimodal and cross-modal visual and auditory distraction. A group of 24 younger (mean age=21.7years) and 22 older adults (mean age=65.4years) performed visual and auditory n-back tasks while ignoring visual and auditory distraction. Whereas reaction time data indicated that both young and older adults are particularly affected by unimodal distraction, accuracy data revealed that older adults, but not younger adults, are vulnerable to cross-modal visual distraction. These results support the notion that age-related distractibility is Modality dependent. Keywords: Driver distraction; Language: en
-
Automatic Selective Attention as a Function of Sensory Modality in Aging
The journals of gerontology. Series B Psychological sciences and social sciences, 2011Co-Authors: Maria J. S. Guerreiro, Jos J. Adam, Pascal W. M. Van GervenAbstract:CCORDING to a recent hypothesis, age-related dif-ferences in selective attention are Modality depen-dent (Guerreiro, Murphy, & Van Gerven, 2010; Guerreiro & Van Gerven, 2011). Specifically, this hypothesis predicts that age-related deficits are most likely to arise in tasks that require suppressing unimodal rather than cross-modal distraction and in tasks that require suppressing visual dis-traction, regardless of the relevant Modality (Figure 1).Evidence for a critical role of Sensory Modality in age-related distractibility comes from a comparative review of experimental paradigms by Sensory Modality of relevant and irrelevant information (Guerreiro et al., 2010). Within unimodal selective attention, older adults have long been shown to be more vulnerable to distraction than younger adults in several tasks, including visual and auditory variants of the Stroop task (e.g., Wurm, Labouvie-Vief, Aycock, Rebucal, & Koch, 2004), visual and auditory versions of the Simon tasks (e.g., Pick & Proctor, 1999), and in both reading-with-distraction (e.g., Connelly, Hasher, & Zacks, 1991) and listening-in-noise paradigms (e.g., Tun, O’Kane, & Wingfield, 2002).Age-related differences in cross-modal selective atten-tion have been considerably less investigated thus far. Recently, however, an interesting Modality-specific asym-metry in age-related distractibility has been demonstrated in our laboratory (Guerreiro & Van Gerven, 2011). We compared age-related differences in cross-modal visual and auditory selective attention by using equivalent tasks across modalities. The results of this study showed that older adults were more vulnerable than younger adults to cross-modal visual distraction, whereas there were no age differences with respect to cross-modal auditory distraction.This distinct pattern of age-related differences in selective attention may be linked to the reliance of visual and audi-tory modalities on distinct filtering mechanisms (Guerreiro et al., 2010). Specifically, auditory distraction appears to be filtered out at both central (e.g., auditory cortex) and periph-eral (e.g., cochlea) neurocognitive levels (Giard, Fort, Mouchetant-Rostaing, & Pernier, 2000), with central filtering likely occurring when some aspects of the auditory stream need to be attended (i.e., unimodal auditory selective atten-tion) and peripheral filtering likely occurring when the entire auditory Modality can be shut off (i.e., cross-modal visual attention). In contrast, visual distraction appears to be primarily suppressed at more central levels of processing (e.g., visual cortex; Kanwisher & Wojciulik, 2000), regard-less of whether some aspects of the visual stream need to be attended (i.e., unimodal visual selective attention) or the whole visual Modality can be shut off (i.e., cross-modal auditory attention). Arguably, the higher distraction gets in the processing stream, the stronger its deleterious effects for
-
the role of Sensory Modality in age related distraction a critical review and a renewed view
Psychological Bulletin, 2010Co-Authors: Maria J. S. Guerreiro, Dana R. Murphy, Pascal W. M. Van GervenAbstract:Selective attention requires the ability to focus on relevant information and to ignore irrelevant information. The ability to inhibit irrelevant information has been proposed to be the main source of age-related cognitive change (e.g., Hasher & Zacks, 1988). Although age-related distraction by irrelevant information has been extensively demonstrated in the visual Modality, studies involving auditory and cross-modal paradigms have revealed a mixed pattern of results. A comparative evaluation of these paradigms according to Sensory Modality suggests a twofold trend: Age-related distraction is more likely (a) in unimodal than in cross-modal paradigms and (b) when irrelevant information is presented in the visual Modality, rather than in the auditory Modality. This distinct pattern of age-related changes in selective attention may be linked to the reliance of the visual and auditory modalities on different filtering mechanisms. Distractors presented through the auditory Modality can be filtered at both central and peripheral neurocognitive levels. In contrast, distractors presented through the visual Modality are primarily suppressed at more central levels of processing, which may be more vulnerable to aging. We propose the hypothesis that age-related distractibility is Modality dependent, a notion that might need to be incorporated in current theories of cognitive aging. Ultimately, this might lead to a more accurate account for the mixed pattern of impaired and preserved selective attention found in advancing age.
Charles Spence - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Differences between endogenous attention to spatial locations and Sensory modalities
Experimental brain research, 2017Co-Authors: J. Vibell, Corinna Klinge, Massimiliano Zampini, Anna C. Nobre, Charles SpenceAbstract:Vibell et al. (J Cogn Neurosci 19:109–120, 2007) reported that endogenously attending to a Sensory Modality (vision or touch) modulated perceptual processing, in part, by the relative speeding-up of neural activation (i.e., as a result of prior entry). However, it was unclear whether it was the fine temporal discrimination required by the temporal-order judgment task that was used, or rather, the type of attentional modulation (spatial locations or Sensory modalities) that was responsible for the shift in latencies that they observed. The present study used a similar experimental design to evaluate whether spatial attention would also yield similar latency effects suggestive of prior entry in the early visual P1 potentials. Intriguingly, while the results demonstrate similar neural latency shifts attributable to spatial attention, they started at a somewhat later stage than seen in Vibell et al.’s study. These differences are consistent with different neural mechanisms underlying attention to a specific Sensory Modality versus to a spatial location.
-
combined effects of motor response Sensory Modality and stimulus intensity on temporal reproduction
Experimental Brain Research, 2016Co-Authors: Allegra Indraccolo, Charles Spence, Argiro Vatakis, Vanessa HarrarAbstract:The ability to estimate a filled interval of time is affected by numerous non-temporal factors, such as the Sensory Modality, duration, and the intensity of the stimulus. Here we explore the role of Modality (auditory or visual), stimulus intensity (low vs. high), and motor response speed on the ability to reproduce the duration of short (<1 s) filled intervals. In accordance with the literature, the reproduced duration was affected by both the Modality and the intensity of the stimulus; longer reproduction times were generally observed for visual as compared to auditory stimuli, and for low as compared to high-intensity stimuli. We used general estimating equations in order to determine whether these factors independently affected participants’ ability to reproduce a given duration, after eliminating the variability associated with reaction time, since it covaried with the reproduced durations. This analysis revealed that stimulus duration, Modality, and intensity were all significant independent predictors of the reproduced durations. Additionally, duration interacted with intensity when reproducing auditory intervals. That is, after taking into account the general speeding-up effect that high-intensity stimuli have on responses, they seem to have an additional effect on the rate of the internal clock. These results support previous evidence suggesting that auditory and visual clocks run at different speeds.
-
the effect of motor response Sensory Modality and intensity on temporal reproduction
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014Co-Authors: Allegra Indraccolo, Charles Spence, Argiro Vatakis, Vanessa HarrarAbstract:Abstract The ability to perceive a filled interval of time is affected by numerous non-temporal factors, such as the Modality and intensity of the stimulus, and cognitive load. The present study explores the role of Modality (auditory and visual), stimulus intensity (weak or strong), and motor response speed on the subjective duration of short (
-
Integrating motion information across Sensory modalities: the role of top-down factors.
Progress in brain research, 2006Co-Authors: Salvador Soto-faraco, Alan Kingstone, Charles SpenceAbstract:Recent studies have highlighted the influence of multiSensory integration mechanisms in the processing of motion information. One central issue in this research area concerns the extent to which the behavioral correlates of these effects can be attributed to late post-perceptual (i.e., response-related or decisional) processes rather than to perceptual mechanisms of multiSensory binding. We investigated the influence of various top-down factors on the phenomenon of crossmodal dynamic capture, whereby the direction of motion in one Sensory Modality (audition) is strongly influenced by motion presented in another Sensory Modality (vision). In Experiment 1, we introduced extensive feedback in order to manipulate the motivation level of participants and the extent of their practice with the task. In Experiment 2, we reduced the variability of the irrelevant (visual) distractor stimulus by making its direction predictable beforehand. In Experiment 3, we investigated the effects of changing the stimulus-response mapping (task). None of these manipulations exerted any noticeable influence on the overall pattern of crossmodal dynamic capture that was observed. We therefore conclude that the integration of multiSensory motion cues is robust to a number of top-down influences, thereby revealing that the crossmodal dynamic capture effect reflects the relatively automatic integration of multiSensory motion information.
-
The cost of expecting events in the wrong Sensory Modality.
Perception & psychophysics, 2001Co-Authors: Charles Spence, Michael E. R. Nicholls, Jon DriverAbstract:We examined the effects of Modality expectancy on human performance. Participants judged azimuth (left vs. right location) for an unpredictable sequence of auditory, visual, and tactile targets. In some blocks, equal numbers of targets were presented in each Modality. In others, the majority (75%) of the targets were presented in just one expected Modality. Reaction times (RTs) for targets in an unexpected Modality were slower than when that Modality was expected or when no expectancy applied. RT costs associated with shifting attention from the tactile Modality were greater than those for shifts from either audition or vision. Any RT benefits for the most likely Modality were due to priming from an event in the same Modality on the previous trial, not to the expectancy per se. These results show that stimulus-driven and expectancy-driven effects must be distinguished in studies of attending to different Sensory modalities.
David C Somers - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
prediction of individualized task activation in Sensory Modality selective frontal cortex with connectome fingerprinting
NeuroImage, 2018Co-Authors: Sean M Tobyne, Samantha Michalka, David C Somers, James A Brissenden, Abigail Noyce, David E OsherAbstract:Abstract The human cerebral cortex is estimated to comprise 200–300 distinct functional regions per hemisphere. Identification of the precise anatomical location of an individual's unique set of functional regions is a challenge for neuroscience that has broad scientific and clinical utility. Recent studies have demonstrated the existence of four interleaved regions in lateral frontal cortex (LFC) that are part of broader visual attention and auditory attention networks (Michalka et al., 2015; Noyce et al., 2017; Tobyne et al., 2017). Due to a large degree of inter-subject anatomical variability, identification of these regions depends critically on within-subject analyses. Here, we demonstrate that, for both sexes, an individual's unique pattern of resting-state functional connectivity can accurately identify their specific pattern of visual- and auditory-selective working memory and attention task activation in lateral frontal cortex (LFC) using “connectome fingerprinting.” Building on prior techniques (Saygin et al., 2011; Osher et al., 2016; Tavor et al., 2016; Smittenaar et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017; Parker Jones et al., 2017), we demonstrate here that connectome fingerprint predictions are far more accurate than group-average predictions and match the accuracy of within-subject task-based functional localization, while requiring less data. These findings are robust across brain parcellations and are improved with penalized regression methods. Because resting-state data can be easily and rapidly collected, these results have broad implications for both clinical and research investigations of frontal lobe function. Our findings also provide a set of recommendations for future research.
-
short term memory for space and time flexibly recruit complementary Sensory biased frontal lobe attention networks
Neuron, 2015Co-Authors: Samantha Michalka, Lingqiang Kong, Maya L Rosen, Barbara G Shinncunningham, David C SomersAbstract:The frontal lobes control wide-ranging cognitive functions; however, functional subdivisions of human frontal cortex are only coarsely mapped. Here, functional magnetic resonance imaging reveals two distinct visual-biased attention regions in lateral frontal cortex, superior precentral sulcus (sPCS) and inferior precentral sulcus (iPCS), anatomically interdigitated with two auditory-biased attention regions, transverse gyrus intersecting precentral sulcus (tgPCS) and caudal inferior frontal sulcus (cIFS). Intrinsic functional connectivity analysis demonstrates that sPCS and iPCS fall within a broad visual-attention network, while tgPCS and cIFS fall within a broad auditory-attention network. Interestingly, we observe that spatial and temporal short-term memory (STM), respectively, recruit visual and auditory attention networks in the frontal lobe, independent of Sensory Modality. These findings not only demonstrate that both Sensory Modality and information domain influence frontal lobe functional organization, they also demonstrate that spatial processing co-localizes with visual processing and that temporal processing co-localizes with auditory processing in lateral frontal cortex.
Claude Alain - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
orienting attention to short term memory representations via Sensory Modality and semantic category retro cues
eNeuro, 2020Co-Authors: Kristina C Backer, Bradley R Buchsbaum, Claude AlainAbstract:There is growing interest in characterizing the neural mechanisms underlying the interactions between attention and memory. Current theories posit that reflective attention to memory representations generally involves a fronto-parietal attentional control network. The present study aimed to test this idea by manipulating how a particular short-term memory (STM) representation is accessed – that is, based on its input Sensory Modality or semantic category – during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Human participants performed a novel variant of the retro-cue paradigm, in which they were presented with both auditory and visual non-verbal stimuli followed by Modality, Semantic, or Uninformative retro-cues. Modality and, to a lesser extent, Semantic retro-cues facilitated response time relative to Uninformative retro-cues. The univariate and multivariate pattern analyses of fMRI time-series revealed three key findings. First, the Posterior Parietal Cortex (PPC), including portions of the Intraparietal Sulcus (IPS) and ventral Angular Gyrus (AG), had activation patterns that spatially overlapped for both Modality-based and Semantic-based reflective attention. Second, considering both the univariate and multivariate analyses, Semantic retro-cues were associated with a left-lateralized fronto-parietal network. Finally, the experimental design enabled us to examine how dividing attention cross-modally within STM modulates the brain regions involved in reflective attention. This analysis revealed that univariate activation within bilateral portions of the PPC increased when participants simultaneously attended both auditory and visual memory representations. Therefore, prefrontal and parietal regions are flexibly recruited during reflective attention, depending on the representational feature used to selectively access STM representations. Significance Statement This functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study sought to examine similarities and differences in neural activity when concrete (Sensory Modality) and abstract (semantic category) information is used to guide attention to short-term memory representations of non-verbal stimuli. The posterior parietal cortex (especially portions of Intraparietal Sulcus and left ventral Angular Gyrus (AG)) had activation patterns that were specific to both Modality- and semantic-based reflective attention. Semantic-based reflective attention also recruited additional left-lateralized prefrontal regions and dorsolateral AG. Furthermore, dividing attention across Sensory domains within memory was associated with stronger activation within the dorsomedial posterior parietal cortex. Thus, attentional orienting to memory flexibly recruits prefrontal and parietal regions as necessary, depending on the information used to selectively access memory representations.
