» Articles » PMID: 31387915

Probing the Neural Mechanisms for Distractor Filtering and Their History-Contingent Modulation by Means of TMS

Overview
Journal J Neurosci
Specialty Neurology
Date 2019 Aug 8
PMID 31387915
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In visual search, the presence of a salient, yet task-irrelevant, distractor in the stimulus array interferes with target selection and slows down performance. Neuroimaging data point to a key role of the frontoparietal dorsal attention network in dealing with visual distractors; however, the respective roles of different nodes within the network and their hemispheric specialization are still unresolved. Here, we used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to evaluate the causal role of two key regions of the dorsal attention network in resisting attentional capture by a salient singleton distractor: the frontal eye field (FEF) and the cortex within the intraparietal sulcus (IPS). The task of the participants (male/female human volunteers) was to discriminate the pointing direction of a target arrow while ignoring a task-irrelevant salient distractor. Immediately after stimulus onset, triple-pulse 10 Hz TMS was delivered either to IPS or FEF on either side of the brain. Results indicated that TMS over the right FEF significantly reduced the behavioral cost engendered by the salient distractor relative to left FEF stimulation. No such effect was obtained with stimulation of IPS on either side of brain. Interestingly, this FEF-dependent reduction in distractor interference interacted with the contingent trial history, being maximal when no distractor was present on the previous trial relative to when there was one. Our results provide direct causal evidence that the right FEF houses key mechanisms for distractor filtering, pointing to a pivotal role of the frontal cortex of the right hemisphere in limiting interference from an irrelevant but attention-grabbing stimulus. Visually conspicuous stimuli attract our attention automatically and interfere with performance by diverting resources away from the main task. Here, we applied transcranial magnetic stimulation over four frontoparietal cortex locations (frontal eye field and intraparietal sulcus in each hemisphere) to identify regions of the dorsal attention network that help limit interference from task-irrelevant, salient distractors. Results indicate that the right FEF participates in distractor-filtering mechanisms that are recruited when a distracting stimulus is encountered. Moreover, right FEF implements adjustments in distraction-filtering mechanisms following recent encounters with distractors. Together, these findings indicate a different hemispheric contribution of the left versus right dorsal frontal cortex to distraction filtering. This study expands our understanding of how our brains select relevant targets in the face of task-irrelevant, salient distractors.

Citing Articles

Causal role of the frontal eye field in attention-induced ocular dominance plasticity.

Song F, Dong X, Zhao J, Wang J, Sang X, He X Elife. 2024; 12.

PMID: 38478405 PMC: 10937035. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.93213.


Success versus failure in cognitive control: Meta-analytic evidence from neuroimaging studies on error processing.

Cieslik E, Ullsperger M, Gell M, Eickhoff S, Langner R Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2023; 156:105468.

PMID: 37979735 PMC: 10976187. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105468.


Pupil Dilation and Microsaccades Provide Complementary Insights into the Dynamics of Arousal and Instantaneous Attention during Effortful Listening.

Contadini-Wright C, Magami K, Mehta N, Chait M J Neurosci. 2023; 43(26):4856-4866.

PMID: 37127361 PMC: 10312051. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0242-23.2023.


Same, Same but Different? A Multi-Method Review of the Processes Underlying Executive Control.

Toba M, Seidel Malkinson T, Howells H, Mackie M, Spagna A Neuropsychol Rev. 2023; 34(2):418-454.

PMID: 36967445 DOI: 10.1007/s11065-023-09577-4.


Transcranial magnetic stimulation over posterior parietal cortex modulates alerting and executive control processes in attention.

Middag-van Spanje M, Duecker F, Gallotto S, de Graaf T, van Heugten C, Sack A Eur J Neurosci. 2022; 56(10):5853-5868.

PMID: 36161393 PMC: 9828423. DOI: 10.1111/ejn.15830.


References
1.
Ro T, Cheifet S, Ingle H, Shoup R, Rafal R . Localization of the human frontal eye fields and motor hand area with transcranial magnetic stimulation and magnetic resonance imaging. Neuropsychologia. 1999; 37(2):225-31. DOI: 10.1016/s0028-3932(98)00097-9. View

2.
Carter C, MacDonald A, Botvinick M, Ross L, Stenger V, Noll D . Parsing executive processes: strategic vs. evaluative functions of the anterior cingulate cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000; 97(4):1944-8. PMC: 26541. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.97.4.1944. View

3.
Pascual-Leone A, Walsh V, Rothwell J . Transcranial magnetic stimulation in cognitive neuroscience--virtual lesion, chronometry, and functional connectivity. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2001; 10(2):232-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-4388(00)00081-7. View

4.
Casey B, Thomas K, Welsh T, Badgaiyan R, Eccard C, Jennings J . Dissociation of response conflict, attentional selection, and expectancy with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000; 97(15):8728-33. PMC: 27016. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.97.15.8728. View

5.
Botvinick M, Braver T, Barch D, Carter C, Cohen J . Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychol Rev. 2001; 108(3):624-52. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.624. View