PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12412889

Cross-modality attentional blinks without preparatory task-set switching.

Abstract

When two masked targets (T1 and T2), both requiring attention, are presented within half a second of each other, report of the second target is poor, demonstrating an attentional blink (AB). Potter, Chun, Banks, and Muckenhoupt (1998) argued that all previous demonstrations of an AB occurring when one or more targets were presented outside the visual modality did not represent true AB but were, instead, artifactual, resulting from switching of task set. In the present experiments, T1 and T2 modalities were independent and varied randomly from trial to trial, allowing no useful preparatory task-set switching from T1 to T2. However, reliable ABs were observed when both targets were visual, when both targets were auditory, and cross-modally when T2s were visual. Furthermore, the ABs observed for cross-modality visual T2s showed the characteristic U-shaped pattern often found in AB experiments in which two visual targets are used--a pattern that should not be observed under task-set switching conditions. These results provide evidence that cross-modality AB can be found under conditions that do not allow useful preparatory task-set switching.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Karen M Arnell, Julie M Larson. 2002. Cross-modality attentional blinks without preparatory task-set switching.. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196305

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The midlatency auditory evoked potential P50 is abnormal in Huntington's disease.

The P50 (or P1) potential is a midlatency auditory evoked response, believed to be partially generated by the cholinergic pedunculopontine nucleus (PPN) neurons that give rise to the ascending reticular activating system (RAS). We compared the P50 potential in 11 Huntington's disease (HD) patients and 13 normal controls using a paired click stimulus paradigm. HD patients exhibited a P50 potential with reduced amplitude and increased latency to the first stimulus of the pair (first P50 potential), suggesting impaired ascending reticular activating system function, which may contribute to sleep disorders seen in HD. Sensory gating, measured as the percent ratio of the second P50 potential amplitude to the first P50 potential amplitude, was reduced at 250 and 500 ms interstimulus intervals (ISI), which may be related to disordered attention and anxiety in HD.

Acoustic Stimulation↗

Somatosensory basis of speech production.

The hypothesis that speech goals are defined acoustically and maintained by auditory feedback is a central idea in speech production research. An alternative proposal is that speech production is organized in terms of control signals that subserve movements and associated vocal-tract configurations. Indeed, the capacity for intelligible speech by deaf speakers suggests that somatosensory inputs related to movement play a role in speech production-but studies that might have documented a somatosensory component have been equivocal. For example, mechanical perturbations that have altered somatosensory feedback have simultaneously altered acoustics. Hence, any adaptation observed under these conditions may have been a consequence of acoustic change. Here we show that somatosensory information on its own is fundamental to the achievement of speech movements. This demonstration involves a dissociation of somatosensory and auditory feedback during speech production. Over time, subjects correct for the effects of a complex mechanical load that alters jaw movements (and hence somatosensory feedback), but which has no measurable or perceptible effect on acoustic output. The findings indicate that the positions of speech articulators and associated somatosensory inputs constitute a goal of speech movements that is wholly separate from the sounds produced.

Acoustic Stimulation↗

Spectrotemporal structure of receptive fields in areas AI and AAF of mouse auditory cortex.

The mouse is a promising model system for auditory cortex research because of the powerful genetic tools available for manipulating its neural circuitry. Previous studies have identified two tonotopic auditory areas in the mouse-primary auditory cortex (AI) and anterior auditory field (AAF)- but auditory receptive fields in these areas have not yet been described. To establish a foundation for investigating auditory cortical circuitry and plasticity in the mouse, we characterized receptive-field structure in AI and AAF of anesthetized mice using spectrally complex and temporally dynamic stimuli as well as simple tonal stimuli. Spectrotemporal receptive fields (STRFs) were derived from extracellularly recorded responses to complex stimuli, and frequency-intensity tuning curves were constructed from responses to simple tonal stimuli. Both analyses revealed temporal differences between AI and AAF responses: peak latencies and receptive-field durations for STRFs and first-spike latencies for responses to tone bursts were significantly longer in AI than in AAF. Spectral properties of AI and AAF receptive fields were more similar, although STRF bandwidths were slightly broader in AI than in AAF. Finally, in both AI and AAF, a substantial minority of STRFs were spectrotemporally inseparable. The spectrotemporal interaction typically appeared in the form of clearly disjoint excitatory and inhibitory subfields or an obvious spectrotemporal slant in the STRF. These data provide the first detailed description of auditory receptive fields in the mouse and suggest that although neurons in areas AI and AAF share many response characteristics, area AAF may be specialized for faster temporal processing.

Acoustic Stimulation↗