Journal Home > Volume 9 , Issue 2
Brain Science Advances 2023, 9(2): 95-113 https://doi.org/10.26599/BSA.2023.9050008
Research Article | Open Access | Issue | Published: 05 June 2023

Neural mechanisms of top-down divided and selective spatial attention in visual and auditory perception

Show Author's Information Zhongtian Guan1,2,3,§,  Meng Lin4,§,  Qiong Wu5,  Jinglong Wu5,6,  Kewei Chen7,  Hongbin Han8,  Dehua Chui9,  Xu Zhang1,2,3,  Chunlin Li1,2,3( )
School of Biomedical Engineering, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China
Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data-based Precision Medicine, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China
Beijing Key Laboratory of Fundamental Research on Biomechanics in Clinical Application, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China
Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China
Biomedical Engineering Laboratory, Graduate School of Natural Science and Technology, Okayama University, 3-1-1 Tsushima-naka, Okayama, Japan
Key Laboratory of Biomimetic Robots and Systems, Ministry of Education, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
Computational Image Analysis, Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and Banner Good Samaritan Medical Centre, PET Centre, Phoenix, AZ 85006, USA
Radiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
Neuroscience Research Institute/ Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
Keywords:
fMRI, top-down mechanism, divided spatial attention, selective spatial attention, Granger causality
Cite this article:
Guan Z, Lin M, Wu Q, et al. Neural mechanisms of top-down divided and selective spatial attention in visual and auditory perception. Brain Science Advances, 2023, 9(2): 95-113. https://doi.org/10.26599/BSA.2023.9050008
Download citation
EndNote(RIS)
BibTeX

628

Views

41

Downloads

Citations

2

Crossref

N/A

WoS

N/A

Scopus

N/A

CSCD

Abstract Full text About this article

Top-down attention mechanisms require the selection of specific objects or locations; however, the brain mechanism involved when attention is allocated across different modalities is not well understood. The aim of this study was to use functional magnetic resonance imaging to define the neural mechanisms underlying divided and selective spatial attention. A concurrent audiovisual stimulus was used, and subjects were prompted to focus on a visual, auditory and audiovisual stimulus in a Posner paradigm. Our behavioral results confirmed the better performance of selective attention compared to devided attention. We found differences in the activation level of the frontoparietal network, visual/auditory cortex, the putamen and the salience network under different attention conditions. We further used Granger causality (GC) to explore effective connectivity differences between tasks. Differences in GC connectivity between visual and auditory selective tasks reflected the visual dominance effect under spatial attention. In addition, our results supported the role of the putamen in redistributing attention and the functional separation of the salience network. In summary, we explored the audiovisual top-down allocation of attention and observed the differences in neural mechanisms under endogenous attention modes, which revealed the differences in cross-modal expression in visual and auditory attention under attentional modulation.


menu
Abstract
Full text
Outline
About this article

Neural mechanisms of top-down divided and selective spatial attention in visual and auditory perception

Show Author's information Zhongtian Guan1,2,3,§, Meng Lin4,§, Qiong Wu5, Jinglong Wu5,6, Kewei Chen7, Hongbin Han8, Dehua Chui9, Xu Zhang1,2,3, Chunlin Li1,2,3( )
School of Biomedical Engineering, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China
Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data-based Precision Medicine, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China
Beijing Key Laboratory of Fundamental Research on Biomechanics in Clinical Application, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China
Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China
Biomedical Engineering Laboratory, Graduate School of Natural Science and Technology, Okayama University, 3-1-1 Tsushima-naka, Okayama, Japan
Key Laboratory of Biomimetic Robots and Systems, Ministry of Education, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
Computational Image Analysis, Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and Banner Good Samaritan Medical Centre, PET Centre, Phoenix, AZ 85006, USA
Radiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
Neuroscience Research Institute/ Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China

Abstract

Top-down attention mechanisms require the selection of specific objects or locations; however, the brain mechanism involved when attention is allocated across different modalities is not well understood. The aim of this study was to use functional magnetic resonance imaging to define the neural mechanisms underlying divided and selective spatial attention. A concurrent audiovisual stimulus was used, and subjects were prompted to focus on a visual, auditory and audiovisual stimulus in a Posner paradigm. Our behavioral results confirmed the better performance of selective attention compared to devided attention. We found differences in the activation level of the frontoparietal network, visual/auditory cortex, the putamen and the salience network under different attention conditions. We further used Granger causality (GC) to explore effective connectivity differences between tasks. Differences in GC connectivity between visual and auditory selective tasks reflected the visual dominance effect under spatial attention. In addition, our results supported the role of the putamen in redistributing attention and the functional separation of the salience network. In summary, we explored the audiovisual top-down allocation of attention and observed the differences in neural mechanisms under endogenous attention modes, which revealed the differences in cross-modal expression in visual and auditory attention under attentional modulation.

Keywords: fMRI, top-down mechanism, divided spatial attention, selective spatial attention, Granger causality

References(68)

[1]
Pinto Y, van der Leij AR, Sligte IG, et al. Bottom-up and top-down attention are independent. J Vis 2013, 13(3): 16.
DOI Google Scholar
[2]
Broadbent DE. Perception and communication. Elsevier, 2013.
[3]
Driver J. A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. Br J Psychol 2001, 92(Part 1): 53–78.
DOI Google Scholar
[4]
Baluch F, Itti L. Mechanisms of top-down attention. Trends Neurosci 2011, 34(4): 210–224.
DOI Google Scholar
[5]
Sarter M, Givens B, Bruno JP. The cognitive neuroscience of sustained attention: where top-down meets bottom-up. Brain Res Brain Res Rev 2001, 35(2): 146–160.
DOI Google Scholar
[6]
Coull JT, Nobre AC. Where and when to pay attention: the neural systems for directing attention to spatial locations and to time intervals as revealed by both PET and fMRI. J Neurosci 1998, 18(18): 7426–7435.
DOI Google Scholar
[7]
Capotosto P, Babiloni C, Romani GL, et al. Frontoparietal cortex controls spatial attention through modulation of anticipatory alpha rhythms. J Neurosci 2009, 29(18): 5863–5872.
DOI Google Scholar
[8]
Long NM, Kuhl BA. Bottom-up and top-down factors differentially influence stimulus representations across large-scale attentional networks. J Neurosci 2018, 38(10): 2495–2504.
DOI Google Scholar
[9]
Kim NY, Kastner S. A biased competition theory for the developmental cognitive neuroscience of visuo-spatial attention. Curr Opin Psychol 2019, 29: 219–228.
DOI Google Scholar
[10]
Posner MI. Orienting of attention. Q J Exp Psychol 1980, 32(1): 3–25.
DOI Google Scholar
[11]
Doricchi F, Macci E, Silvetti M, et al. Neural correlates of the spatial and expectancy components of endogenous and stimulus-driven orienting of attention in the Posner task. Cereb Cortex 2010, 20(7): 1574–1585.
DOI Google Scholar
[12]
Agmon G, Yahav PH, Ben-Shachar M, et al. Attention to speech: mapping distributed and selective attention systems. Cereb Cortex 2022, 32(17): 3763–3776.
DOI Google Scholar
[13]
Johnson JA, Zatorre RJ. Neural substrates for dividing and focusing attention between simultaneous auditory and visual events. Neuroimage 2006, 31(4): 1673–1681.
DOI Google Scholar
[14]
Yang Z, Mayer AR. An event-related FMRI study of exogenous orienting across vision and audition. Hum Brain Mapp 2014, 35(3): 964–974.
DOI Google Scholar
[15]
Lukas S, Philipp AM, Koch I. Switching attention between modalities: further evidence for visual dominance. Psychological Research 2010, 74(3): 255–267.
DOI Google Scholar
[16]
Moisala M, Salmela V, Salo E, et al. Brain activity during divided and selective attention to auditory and visual sentence comprehension tasks. Front Hum Neurosci 2015, 9: 86.
DOI Google Scholar
[17]
Salo E, Salmela V, Salmi J, et al. Brain activity associated with selective attention, divided attention and distraction. Brain Res 2017, 1664: 25–36.
DOI Google Scholar
[18]
Santangelo V, Fagioli S, Macaluso E. The costs of monitoring simultaneously two sensory modalities decrease when dividing attention in space. Neuroimage 2010, 49(3): 2717–2727.
DOI Google Scholar
[19]
Horwitz B, Warner B, Fitzer J, et al. Investigating the neural basis for functional and effective connectivity. Application to fMRI. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2005, 360(1457): 1093–1108.
DOI Google Scholar
[20]
Friston KJ. Functional and effective connectivity in neuroimaging: a synthesis. Hum Brain Mapp 1994, 2(1/2): 56–78.
DOI Google Scholar
[21]
Roebroeck A, Formisano E, Goebel R. Mapping directed influence over the brain using Granger causality and fMRI. Neuroimage 2005, 25(1): 230–242.
DOI Google Scholar
[22]
Santangelo V. Large-scale brain networks supporting divided attention across spatial locations and sensory modalities. Front Integr Neurosci 2018, 12: 8.
DOI Google Scholar
[23]
Qiao L, Xu MS, Luo X, et al. Flexible adjustment of the effective connectivity between the fronto-parietal and visual regions supports cognitive flexibility. Neuroimage 2020, 220: 117158.
DOI Google Scholar
[24]
Friston KJ, Holmes AP, Worsley KJ, et al. Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: a general linear approach. Hum Brain Mapp 1994, 2(4): 189–210.
DOI Google Scholar
[25]
Cocosco CA, Kollokian V, Kwan RKS, et al. BrainWeb: online interface to a 3D MRI simulated brain database. Neuroimage 1997, 5(4): S425
Google Scholar
[26]
Ashburner J, Friston KJ. Nonlinear spatial normalization using basis functions. Hum Brain Mapp 1999, 7(4): 254–266.
DOI
[27]
Friston KJ, Fletcher P, Josephs O, et al. Event-related fMRI: characterizing differential responses. Neuroimage 1998, 7(1): 30–40.
DOI Google Scholar
[28]
Friston KJ, Penny W, Phillips C, et al. Classical and Bayesian inference in neuroimaging: theory. Neuroimage 2002, 16(2): 465–483.
DOI Google Scholar
[29]
van Essen DC. A Population-Average, Landmark- and Surface-based (PALS) atlas of human cerebral cortex. Neuroimage 2005, 28(3): 635–662.
DOI Google Scholar
[30]
van Essen DC. Cortical cartography and caret software. Neuroimage 2012, 62(2): 757–764.
DOI Google Scholar
[31]
Wen XT, Liu YJ, Yao L, et al. Top-down regulation of default mode activity in spatial visual attention. J Neurosci 2013, 33(15): 6444–6453.
DOI Google Scholar
[32]
Wu GR, Liao W, Stramaglia S, et al. A blind deconvolution approach to recover effective connectivity brain networks from resting state fMRI data. Med Image Anal 2013, 17(3): 365–374.
DOI Google Scholar
[33]
Massaro DW, Simpson JA. Speech perception by ear and eye: a paradigm for psychological inquiry. New York: Psychology Press,2014.
DOI
[34]
Talsma D, Woldorff MG. Selective attention and multisensory integration: multiple phases of effects on the evoked brain activity. J Cogn Neurosci 2005, 17(7): 1098–1114.
DOI Google Scholar
[35]
Koelewijn T, Bronkhorst A, Theeuwes J. Attention and the multiple stages of multisensory integration: a review of audiovisual studies. Acta Psychol (Amst) 2010, 134(3): 372–384.
DOI Google Scholar
[36]
Talsma D, Senkowski D, Soto-Faraco S, et al. The multifaceted interplay between attention and multisensory integration. Trends Cogn Sci 2010, 14(9): 400–410.
DOI Google Scholar
[37]
Alais D, Newell FN, Mamassian P. Multisensory processing in review: from physiology to behaviour. Seeing Perceiving 2010, 23(1): 3–38.
DOI Google Scholar
[38]
Keil J, Senkowski D. Neural oscillations orchestrate multisensory processing. Neuroscientist 2018, 24(6): 609–626.
DOI Google Scholar
[39]
Cona G, Scarpazza C. Where is the “where” in the brain? A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on spatial cognition. Hum Brain Mapp 2019, 40(6): 1867–1886.
DOI Google Scholar
[40]
Ptak R, Schnider A, Fellrath J. The dorsal frontoparietal network: a core system for emulated action. Trends Cogn Sci 2017, 21(8): 589–599.
DOI Google Scholar
[41]
Shulman GL, Pope DL, Astafiev SV, et al. Right hemisphere dominance during spatial selective attention and target detection occurs outside the dorsal frontoparietal network. J Neurosci 2010, 30(10): 3640–3651.
DOI Google Scholar
[42]
Gitelman DR, Nobre AC, Parrish TB, et al. A large-scale distributed network for covert spatial attention: further anatomical delineation based on stringent behavioural and cognitive controls. Brain 1999, 122 (Pt 6): 1093–1106.
DOI Google Scholar
[43]
Chica AB, Bartolomeo P, Lupiáñez J. Two cognitive and neural systems for endogenous and exogenous spatial attention. Behav Brain Res 2013, 237: 107–123.
DOI Google Scholar
[44]
Duecker F, Formisano E, Sack AT. Hemispheric differences in the voluntary control of spatial attention: direct evidence for a right-hemispheric dominance within frontal cortex. J Cogn Neurosci 2013, 25(8): 1332–1342.
DOI Google Scholar
[45]
Zago L, Petit L, Jobard G, et al. Pseudoneglect in line bisection judgement is associated with a modulation of right hemispheric spatial attention dominance in right-handers. Neuropsychologia 2017, 94: 75–83.
DOI Google Scholar
[46]
Capotosto P, Tosoni A, Spadone S, et al. Anatomical segregation of visual selection mechanisms in human parietal cortex. J Neurosci 2013, 33(14): 6225–6229.
DOI Google Scholar
[47]
Du M, Basyouni R, Parkinson C. How does the brain navigate knowledge of social relations? Testing for shared neural mechanisms for shifting attention in space and social knowledge. Neuroimage 2021, 235: 118019.
DOI Google Scholar
[48]
Chica AB, Paz-Alonso PM, Valero-Cabré A, et al. Neural bases of the interactions between spatial attention and conscious perception. Cereb Cortex 2013, 23(6): 1269–1279.
DOI Google Scholar
[49]
Moerel D, Rich AN, Woolgar A. Selective attention and decision-making have separable neural bases in space and time. bioRxiv 2021, .
DOI Google Scholar
[50]
Wang LY, Li CL, Han ZT, et al. Spatiotemporal and sensory modality attention processing with domain-specific representations in frontoparietal areas. Cereb Cortex 2022, 32(24): 5489–5502.
DOI Google Scholar
[51]
Jenkins AC. Rethinking cognitive load: a default-mode network perspective. Trends Cogn Sci 2019, 23(7): 531–533.
DOI Google Scholar
[52]
Mirza MB, Adams RA, Friston K, et al. Introducing a Bayesian model of selective attention based on active inference. Sci Rep 2019, 9(1): 13915.
DOI Google Scholar
[53]
Whiteley L, Sahani M. Attention in a Bayesian framework. Front Hum Neurosci 2012, 6: 100.
DOI Google Scholar
[54]
Odegaard B, Wozny DR, Shams L. The effects of selective and divided attention on sensory precision and integration. Neurosci Lett 2016, 614: 24–28.
DOI Google Scholar
[55]
Poletti M, Rucci M, Carrasco M. Selective attention within the foveola. Nat Neurosci 2017, 20(10): 1413–1417.
DOI Google Scholar
[56]
Jarbo K, Verstynen TD. Converging structural and functional connectivity of orbitofrontal, dorsolateral prefrontal, and posterior parietal cortex in the human striatum. J Neurosci 2015, 35(9): 3865–3878.
DOI Google Scholar
[57]
Vossel S, Mathys C, Stephan KE, et al. Cortical coupling reflects Bayesian belief updating in the deployment of spatial attention. J Neurosci 2015, 35(33): 11532–11542.
DOI Google Scholar
[58]
Lavie N, Hirst A, de Fockert JW, et al. Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. J Exp Psychol Gen 2004, 133(3): 339–354.
DOI Google Scholar
[59]
Hausfeld L, Shiell M, Formisano E, et al. Cortical processing of distracting speech in noisy auditory scenes depends on perceptual demand. Neuroimage 2021, 228: 117670.
DOI Google Scholar
[60]
Matusz PJ, Merkley R, Faure M, et al. Expert attention: Attentional allocation depends on the differential development of multisensory number representations. Cognition 2019, 186: 171–177.
DOI Google Scholar
[61]
McNab F, Klingberg T. Prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia control access to working memory. Nat Neurosci 2008, 11(1): 103–107.
DOI Google Scholar
[62]
van Schouwenburg MR, den Ouden HE, Cools R. Selective attentional enhancement and inhibition of fronto-posterior connectivity by the basal Ganglia during attention switching. Cereb Cortex 2015, 25(6): 1527–1534.
DOI Google Scholar
[63]
Fu D, Weber C, Yang GC, et al. What can computational models learn from human selective attention? A review from an audiovisual unimodal and crossmodal perspective. Front Integr Neurosci 2020, 14: 10.
DOI Google Scholar
[64]
Mengotti P, Käsbauer AS, Fink GR, et al. Combined TMS-fMRI reveals behavior-dependent network effects of right temporoparietal junction neurostimulation in an attentional belief updating task. Cereb Cortex 2022, 32(21): 4698–4714.
DOI Google Scholar
[65]
Zhou J, Seeley WW. Network dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia: implications for psychiatry. Biol Psychiatry 2014, 75(7): 565–573.
DOI Google Scholar
[66]
David SP, Ware JJ, Chu IM, et al. Potential reporting bias in fMRI studies of the brain. PLoS One 2013, 8(7): e70104.
DOI Google Scholar
[67]
Ingre M. Why small low-powered studies are worse than large high-powered studies and how to protect against “trivial” findings in research: comment on Friston (2012). Neuroimage 2013, 81: 496–498.
DOI Google Scholar
[68]
Lindquist MA, Caffo B, Crainiceanu C. Ironing out the statistical wrinkles in “ten ironic rules”. Neuroimage 2013, 81: 499–502.
DOI Google Scholar
Publication history
Copyright
Rights and permissions

Publication history

Received: 31 December 2022
Revised: 06 March 2023
Accepted: 08 March 2023
Published: 05 June 2023
Issue date: June 2023

Copyright

© The authors 2023.

Rights and permissions

This article is published with open access at journals.sagepub.com/home/BSA

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

Return