Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31150787›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2019

The time-course of component processes of selective attention.

Tanya Wen, John Duncan, Daniel J Mitchell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Time Courses of Attended and Ignored Object Representations.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Multivariate Analysis of Electrophysiological Signals Reveals the Temporal Properties of Visuomotor Computations for Precision Grips.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2019
    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

3 authors.

Tanya WenMedical Research Council, Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge, CB2 7EF, United Kingdom. Electronic address: tanya.wen@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk.
John DuncanMedical Research Council, Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge, CB2 7EF, United Kingdom; Department of Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: john.duncan@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk.
Daniel J MitchellMedical Research Council, Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge, CB2 7EF, United Kingdom. Electronic address: daniel.mitchell@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00005/6
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Attentional selection shapes human perception, enhancing relevant information, according to behavioral goals. While many studies have investigated individual neural signatures of attention, here we used multivariate decoding of electrophysiological brain responses (MEG/EEG) to track and compare multiple component processes of selective attention. Auditory cues instructed participants to select a particular visual target, embedded within a subsequent stream of displays. Combining single and multi-item displays with different types of distractors allowed multiple aspects of information content to be decoded, distinguishing distinct components of attention, as the selection process evolved. Although the task required comparison of items to an attentional "template" held in memory, signals consistent with such a template were largely undetectable throughout the preparatory period but re-emerged after presentation of a non-target choice display. Choice displays evoked strong neural representation of multiple target features, evolving over different timescales. We quantified five distinct processing operations with different time-courses. First, visual properties of the stimulus were strongly represented. Second, the candidate target was rapidly identified and localized in multi-item displays, providing the earliest evidence of modulation by behavioral relevance. Third, the identity of the target continued to be enhanced, relative to distractors. Fourth, only later was the behavioral significance of the target explicitly represented in single-item displays. Finally, if the target was not identified and search was to be resumed, then an attentional template was weakly reactivated. The observation that an item's behavioral relevance directs attention in multi-item displays prior to explicit representation of target/non-target status in single-item displays is consistent with two-stage models of attention.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAttentionBrain MappingCerebral CortexElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetoencephalographyMalePattern Recognition, VisualPitch PerceptionPsychomotor PerformanceSpatio-Temporal AnalysisTime FactorsAttentional templateDecodingMEG/EEGSelective attentionVisual processing

Identifiers

PMID31150787
PMCPMC6693528

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.