» Articles » PMID: 22159116

Contextual Knowledge Configures Attentional Control Networks

Overview
Journal J Neurosci
Specialty Neurology
Date 2011 Dec 14
PMID 22159116
Citations 45
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Contextual cues are predictive and provide behaviorally relevant information; they are not the main objective of the current task but can make behavior more efficient. Using fMRI, we investigated the brain networks involved in representing contextual information and translating it into an attentional control signal. Human subjects performed a visual search task for a low-contrast target accompanied by a single non-target that was either perceptually similar or more salient (i.e., higher contrast). Shorter reaction times (RTs) and higher accuracy were found on salient trials, suggesting that the salient item was rapidly identified as a non-target and immediately acts as a spatial "anti-cue" to reorient attention to the target. The relative saliency of the non-target determined BOLD responses in the left temporoparietal junction (TPJ) and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG). IFG correlated with RT specifically on salient non-target trials. In contrast, bilateral dorsal frontoparietal regions [including the frontal eye fields (FEFs)] were correlated with RT in all conditions. Effective connectivity analyses using dynamic causal modeling found an excitatory pathway from TPJ to IFG to FEF, suggesting that this was the pathway by which the contextual cue was translated into an attentional control signal that facilitated behavior. Additionally, the connection from FEF to TPJ was negatively modulated during target-similar trials, consistent with the inhibition of TPJ by dorsal attentional control regions during top-down serial visual search. We conclude that left TPJ and IFG form a sensory-driven network that integrates contextual knowledge with ongoing sensory information to provide an attentional control signal to FEF.

Citing Articles

Interplay between preclinical indices of obesity and neural signatures of fluid intelligence in youth.

Ward T, Schantell M, Dietz S, Ende G, Rice D, Coutant A Commun Biol. 2024; 7(1):1285.

PMID: 39379610 PMC: 11461743. DOI: 10.1038/s42003-024-06924-w.


To lie or to tell the truth? The influence of processing the opponent's feedback on the forthcoming choice.

Zheltyakova M, Korotkov A, Cherednichenko D, Didur M, Kireev M Front Psychol. 2024; 15:1275884.

PMID: 38784609 PMC: 11112074. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1275884.


Temporal Properties of Self-Prioritization.

Lu Z, He X, Yi D, Sui J Entropy (Basel). 2024; 26(3).

PMID: 38539754 PMC: 10969339. DOI: 10.3390/e26030242.


Resting State Dynamic Reconfiguration of Spatial Attention Cortical Networks and Visuospatial Functioning in Non-Verbal Learning Disability (NVLD): A HD-EEG Investigation.

Coccaro A, Di Bono M, Maffei A, Orefice C, Lievore R, Mammarella I Brain Sci. 2023; 13(5).

PMID: 37239203 PMC: 10216099. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13050731.


Neural substrates underlying effortful control deficit in autism spectrum disorder: a meta-analysis of fMRI studies.

Krishnamurthy K, Chan M, Han Y Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):20603.

PMID: 36446840 PMC: 9708641. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-25051-2.


References
1.
Proulx M, Egeth H . Biased competition and visual search: the role of luminance and size contrast. Psychol Res. 2006; 72(1):106-13. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-006-0077-z. View

2.
Vossel S, Thiel C, Fink G . Cue validity modulates the neural correlates of covert endogenous orienting of attention in parietal and frontal cortex. Neuroimage. 2006; 32(3):1257-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.05.019. View

3.
Corbetta M, Shulman G . Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002; 3(3):201-15. DOI: 10.1038/nrn755. View

4.
ARRINGTON C, Carr T, Mayer A, Rao S . Neural mechanisms of visual attention: object-based selection of a region in space. J Cogn Neurosci. 2001; 12 Suppl 2:106-17. DOI: 10.1162/089892900563975. View

5.
Liu L, Vira A, Friedman E, Minas J, Bolger D, Bitan T . Children with reading disability show brain differences in effective connectivity for visual, but not auditory word comprehension. PLoS One. 2010; 5(10):e13492. PMC: 2963599. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013492. View