PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12640459

Graspable objects grab attention when the potential for action is recognized.

Todd C Handy·Scott T Grafton·Neha M Shroff·Sarah Ketay·Michael S Gazzaniga
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Visually guided grasping movements require a rapid transformation of visual representations into object-specific motor programs. Here we report that graspable objects may facilitate these visuomotor transformations by automatically grabbing visual spatial attention. Human subjects viewed two task-irrelevant objects--one was a 'tool', the other a 'non-tool'--while waiting for a target to be presented in one of the two object locations. Using event-related potentials (ERPs), we found that spatial attention was systematically drawn to tools in the right and lower visual fields, the hemifields that are dominant for visuomotor processing. Using event-related fMRI, we confirmed that tools grabbed spatial attention only when they also activated dorsal regions of premotor and prefrontal cortices, regions associated with visually guided actions and their planning. Although it is widely accepted that visual sensory gain aids perception, our results suggest that it may also have consequences for object-directed actions.

Explore related subjects

AttentionBrain MappingEvoked PotentialsFeedbackFrontal LobeFunctional LateralityHandHand StrengthHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMotor CortexMovementNeuropsychological TestsPrefrontal CortexPsychomotor PerformanceVisual CortexVisual FieldsVisual PathwaysVisual PerceptionJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Todd C Handy, Scott T Grafton, Neha M Shroff, Sarah Ketay, Michael S Gazzaniga. 2003. Graspable objects grab attention when the potential for action is recognized.. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1031

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Error in skilled performance: a control model of prescribing.

A control model of skilled performance is proposed as a framework for understanding why prescribing errors occur at a particular rate. Model error rate depends on skill level, system design characteristics, the range of different types of prescriptions that are produced and the time available to complete each prescription. The parameters of the model can be adjusted so it produces error rates that are quantitatively equal to those found in studies of the incidence of different types of prescribing error. The model will also produce error rates that are qualitatively consistent with the results of studies that show increases in prescribing error rates as a result of increases in distractions and workload. The model is used to determine the likely effectiveness of different prescribing error prevention interventions.

Attention↗
PubMed2003

Error-proneness as a handicap signal.

This paper describes two discrete signalling models in which the error-proneness of signals can serve as a handicap signal. In the first model, the direct handicap of sending a high-quality signal is not large enough to assure that a low-quality signaller will not send it. However, if the receiver sometimes mistakes a high-quality signal for a low-quality one, then there is an indirect handicap to sending a high-quality signal. The total handicap of sending such a signal may then still be such that a low-quality signaller would not want to send it. In the second model, there is no direct handicap of sending signals, so that nothing would seem to stop a signaller from always sending a high-quality signal. However, the receiver sometimes fails to detect signals, and this causes an indirect handicap of sending a high-quality signal that still stops the low-quality signaller of sending such a signal. The conditions for honesty are that the probability of an error of detection is higher for a high-quality than for a low-quality signal, and that the signaller who does not detect a signal adopts a response that is bad to the signaller. In both our models, we thus obtain the result that signal accuracy should not lie above a certain level in order for honest signalling to be possible. Moreover, we show that the maximal accuracy that can be achieved is higher the lower the degree of conflict between signaller and receiver. As well, we show that it is the conditions for honest signalling that may be constraining signal accuracy, rather than the signaller trying to make honest signals as effective as possible given receiver psychology, or the signaller adapting the accuracy of honest signals depending on his interests.

Attention↗
PubMed2003

Quantitative analysis of attention and detection signals during visual search.

Prior work has distinguished regions in the intraparietal sulcus (IPs) and frontal eye field (FEF) involved in the voluntary control of attention, from more ventral regions in the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) involved in target detection. The present results show that when subjects search for and detect a visual target stimulus among nontargets, these regions show sensory-, search-, and detection-related signals that both confirm and refine these functional distinctions. The different signals were isolated by an additive model that accounted for a large fraction of BOLD (blood oxygenation level-dependent) signal modulation over the brain. Both IPs and FEF were activated during search through nontargets, consistent with a role in maintaining attention-related signals during search. However, unlike FEF, IPs also showed stimulus-related activations, and may combine signals related to sensory and task-dependent components of salience. Although IPs-FEF showed search-related activations, the TPJ was deactivated during search. TPJ activations were confined to detection-related signals. These results provide a much stronger dissociation between the TPJ and IPs-FEF than previous work, while indicating functional differences between frontal and parietal regions that are often coactivated in studies of attention. Finally, continuous flow models of information processing predict that during search, signals from missed targets should be fed from sensory to associative regions rather than being gated by the decision criterion. Correspondingly, missed targets significantly activated parietal (e.g., right TPJ) and frontal (e.g., anterior insula, anterior cingulate) regions, although with a smaller magnitude than detected targets. Surprisingly, many cortical regions showed equivalent signals from detected targets and the completion of target-absent trials, reflecting a widespread signal unrelated to motor execution.

Attention↗