Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26163806›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2015

Distinct effects of trial-driven and task Set-related control in primary visual cortex.

Joseph C Griffis, Abdurahman S Elkhetali, Ryan J Vaden, Kristina M Visscher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Joseph C Griffis *The University of Alabama at Birmingham Department of Psychology.
Abdurahman S Elkhetali *The University of Alabama at Birmingham Department of Neurobiology.
Ryan J VadenThe University of Alabama at Birmingham Department of Neurobiology.
Kristina M VisscherThe University of Alabama at Birmingham Department of Neurobiology.

Funding

UAB Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS)UL1TR001417 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI KIMBERLY, ROBERT P. · 2015 to 2018
$31.4M
Visual Phenotyping CoreP30EY003039 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI Oliver W Gramlich · 1985 to 2026
$16.9M
UAB Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS) UL1UL1TR000165 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI KIMBERLY, ROBERT P. · 2012 to 2013
$9.6M
Pilot CoreP30AG022838 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI BALL, KARLENE K · 2003 to 2020
$5.7M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000165NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001417NEI NIH HHS EY003039NEI NIH HHS P30 EY003039NIA NIH HHS 2 P30 AG022838NIA NIH HHS P30 AG022838
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Task sets are task-specific configurations of cognitive processes that facilitate task-appropriate reactions to stimuli. While it is established that the trial-by-trial deployment of visual attention to expected stimuli influences neural responses in primary visual cortex (V1) in a retinotopically specific manner, it is not clear whether the mechanisms that help maintain a task set over many trials also operate with similar retinotopic specificity. Here, we address this question by using BOLD fMRI to characterize how portions of V1 that are specialized for different eccentricities respond during distinct components of an attention-demanding discrimination task: cue-driven preparation for a trial, trial-driven processing, task-initiation at the beginning of a block of trials, and task-maintenance throughout a block of trials. Tasks required either unimodal attention to an auditory or a visual stimulus or selective intermodal attention to the visual or auditory component of simultaneously presented visual and auditory stimuli. We found that while the retinotopic patterns of trial-driven and cue-driven activity depended on the attended stimulus, the retinotopic patterns of task-initiation and task-maintenance activity did not. Further, only the retinotopic patterns of trial-driven activity were found to depend on the presence of inter-modal distraction. Participants who performed well on the intermodal selective attention tasks showed strong task-specific modulations of both trial-driven and task-maintenance activity. Importantly, task-related modulations of trial-driven and task-maintenance activity were in opposite directions. Together, these results confirm that there are (at least) two different processes for top-down control of V1: One, working trial-by-trial, differently modulates activity across different eccentricity sectors - portions of V1 corresponding to different visual eccentricities. The second process works across longer epochs of task performance, and does not differ among eccentricity sectors. These results are discussed in the context of previous literature examining top-down control of visual cortical areas.

Indexed as

AdultAttentionAuditory PerceptionBrain MappingDiscrimination, PsychologicalExecutive FunctionFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMalePsychomotor PerformanceVisual CortexVisual PerceptionYoung AdultCognitive controlfMRIPrimary visual cortexRetinotopyTask setVisual attention

Identifiers

PMID26163806
PMCPMC4589509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.