Right visual field advantage in orientation discrimination is influenced by biased suppression.
Humans
Visual Fields
/ physiology
Male
Female
Adult
Reaction Time
/ physiology
Electroencephalography
/ methods
Young Adult
Orientation
/ physiology
Orientation, Spatial
/ physiology
Evoked Potentials
/ physiology
Photic Stimulation
Visual Perception
/ physiology
Functional Laterality
/ physiology
Walking
/ physiology
Attention
/ physiology
Attention
Discrimination
Event related potential
Mobile brain imaging
Visual field bias
Walking
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Sep 2024
30 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
20
04
2024
accepted:
23
09
2024
medline:
1
10
2024
pubmed:
1
10
2024
entrez:
30
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Visual input is not equally processed over space. In recent years, a right visual field advantage during free walking and standing in orientation discrimination and contrast detection task was reported. The current study investigated the underlying mechanism of the previously reported right visual field advantage. It particularly tested if the advantage is driven by a stronger suppression of distracting input from the left visual field or improved processing of targets from the right visual field. Combing behavioural and electrophysiological measurements in a mobile EEG and augmented reality setup, human participants (n = 30) in a standing and a walking condition performed a line orientation discrimination task with stimulus eccentricity and distractor status being manipulated. The right visual field advantage, as demonstrated in accuracy and reaction time, was influenced by the distractor status. Specifically, the right visual field advantage was only observed when the target had an incongruent line orientation with the distractor. Neural data further showed that the right visual field advantage was paralleled by a strong modulation of neural activity in the right hemisphere (i.e. contralateral to the distractor). A significant positive correlation between this right hemispheric event related potential (ERP) and behavioural measures (accuracy and reaction time) was found exclusively for trials in which a target was presented on the right and an incongruent distractor was presented on the left. The right hemispheric ERP component further predicted the strength of the right visual field advantage. Notably, the lateralised brain activity and the right visual field advantage were both independent of stimulus eccentricity and the movement state of participants. Overall, our findings suggest an important role of spatially biased suppression of left distracting input in the right visual field advantage as found in orientation discrimination.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39349588
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-73967-8
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-73967-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
22687Subventions
Organisme : China Scholarship Council
ID : 201908060012
Organisme : Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China
ID : STI 2030-Major Projects 2021ZD0200409
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 32271078
Organisme : European Research Council
ID : 677819
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Pollmann, S. A pop-out induced extinction-like phenomenon in neurologically intact subjects. Neuropsychologia34, 413–425 (1996). doi:Doi 10.1016/0028-3932(95)00125-5.
doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(95)00125-5
pubmed: 9148198
Pollmann, S. Extinction-like effects in normals: independence of localization and response selection. Brain Cogn.44, 324–341. https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.1999.1195 (2000).
doi: 10.1006/brcg.1999.1195
pubmed: 11104529
Carlei, C. & Kerzel, D. Stronger interference from distractors in the right hemifield during visual search. Laterality: Asymmetries Body Brain Cogn.23, 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2017.1327539 (2018).
doi: 10.1080/1357650X.2017.1327539
Mazza, V., Turatto, M., Umilta, C. & Eimer, M. Attentional selection and identification of visual objects are reflected by distinct electrophysiological responses. Exp. Brain Res.181, 531–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1002-4 (2007).
doi: 10.1007/s00221-007-1002-4
pubmed: 17602216
pmcid: 2258005
Garcea, F. E., Almeida, J. & Mahon, B. Z. A right visual field advantage for visual processing of manipulable objects. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci.12, 813–825. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-012-0106-x (2012).
doi: 10.3758/s13415-012-0106-x
pubmed: 22864955
pmcid: 3508329
Brederoo, S. G., Nieuwenstein, M. R., Lorist, M. M. & Cornelissen, F. W. Hemispheric specialization for global and local processing: a direct comparison of linguistic and non-linguistic stimuli. Brain Cogn.119, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2017.09.005 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2017.09.005
pubmed: 28923763
Smigasiewicz, K., Westphal, N. & Verleger, R. Leftward bias in orienting to and disengaging attention from salient task-irrelevant events in rapid serial visual presentation. Neuropsychologia94, 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.11.025 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.11.025
pubmed: 27916671
Proverbio, A. M., Zani, A. & Avella, C. Hemispheric asymmetries for spatial frequency discrimination in a selective attention task. Brain Cogn.34, 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.1997.0901 (1997).
doi: 10.1006/brcg.1997.0901
pubmed: 9220094
Thut, G., Nietzel, A. & Brandt, S. A. Pascual-Leone, A. alpha-Band electroencephalographic activity over occipital cortex indexes visuospatial attention bias and predicts visual target detection. J. Neurosci.26, 9494–9502. https://doi.org/10.1523/Jneurosci.0875-06.2006 (2006).
doi: 10.1523/Jneurosci.0875-06.2006
pubmed: 16971533
pmcid: 6674607
Du, F. & Abrams, R. A. Visual field asymmetry in attentional capture. Brain Cogn.72, 310–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.10.006 (2010).
doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.10.006
pubmed: 19913344
Cao, L. & Händel, B. Walking enhances peripheral visual processing in humans. PLoS Biol.17, e3000511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000511 (2019).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000511
pubmed: 31603894
pmcid: 6808500
Cao, L., Chen, X. & Händel, B. F. Overground walking decreases alpha activity and Entrains Eye movements in humans. Front. Hum. Neurosci.14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.561755 (2020).
Nenna, F., Do, C. T., Protzak, J. & Gramann, K. Alteration of brain dynamics during dual-task overground walking. Eur. J. Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.14956 (2020).
doi: 10.1111/ejn.14956
pubmed: 32881128
Ladouce, S., Donaldson, D. I., Dudchenko, P. A. & Ietswaart, M. Mobile EEG identifies the re-allocation of attention during real-world activity. Sci. Rep.9, 15851. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51996-y (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-51996-y
pubmed: 31676780
pmcid: 6825178
Reiser, J. E., Arnau, S., Rinkenauer, G. & Wascher, E. Did you even see that? Visual sensory processing of single stimuli under different locomotor loads. PLoS One17, e0267896. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267896 (2022).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267896
pubmed: 35617315
pmcid: 9135297
Chen, X., Cao, L. & Haendel, B. F. Differential effects of walking across visual cortical processing stages. Cortex149, 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2022.01.007 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2022.01.007
pubmed: 35182897
Heilman, K. M. & Van Den Abell, T. Right hemisphere dominance for attention: the mechanism underlying hemispheric asymmetries of inattention (neglect). Neurology30, 327–330. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.30.3.327 (1980).
doi: 10.1212/wnl.30.3.327
pubmed: 7189037
Chen, Z. Distractor eccentricity and its effect on selective attention. Exp. Psychol.55, 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.55.2.82 (2008).
doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.55.2.82
pubmed: 18444518
Chen, Z. & Treisman, A. Distractor inhibition is more effective at a central than at a peripheral location. Percept. Psychophys.70, 1081–1091. https://doi.org/10.3758/Pp.70.6.1081 (2008).
doi: 10.3758/Pp.70.6.1081
pubmed: 18717393
Luck, S. J. & Hillyard, S. A. Electrophysiological Correlates of Feature Analysis during visual-search. Psychophysiology31, 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1994.tb02218.x (1994).
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1994.tb02218.x
pubmed: 8008793
Luck, S. J. Electrophysiological correlates of the focusing of attention within complex visual scenes: N2pc and related ERP components. Oxford handbook of event-related potential components (Luck SJ and Kappenman ES, eds) (2012).
Hilimire, M. R. & Corballis, P. M. Event-related potentials reveal the effect of prior knowledge on competition for representation and attentional capture. Psychophysiology51, 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12154 (2014).
doi: 10.1111/psyp.12154
pubmed: 24147640
Kiss, M., Van Velzen, J. & Eimer, M. The N2pc component and its links to attention shifts and spatially selective visual processing. Psychophysiology45, 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00611.x (2008).
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00611.x
pubmed: 17971061
Papaioannou, O. & Luck, S. J. Effects of eccentricity on the attention-related N2pc component of the event-related potential waveform. Psychophysiology57, e13532. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13532 (2020).
doi: 10.1111/psyp.13532
pubmed: 31953860
pmcid: 7160023
Kiss, M., Jolicoeur, P., Dell’acqua, R. & Eimer, M. Attentional capture by visual singletons is mediated by top-down task set: new evidence from the N2pc component. Psychophysiology45, 1013–1024. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00700.x (2008).
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00700.x
pubmed: 18801016
pmcid: 2629614
Bacigalupo, F. & Luck, S. J. Lateralized suppression of Alpha-Band EEG activity as a mechanism of Target Processing. J. Neurosci.39, 900–917. https://doi.org/10.1523/Jneurosci.0183-18.2018 (2019).
doi: 10.1523/Jneurosci.0183-18.2018
pubmed: 30523067
pmcid: 6382983
Gaspar, J. M. & McDonald, J. J. Suppression of salient objects prevents distraction in visual search. J. Neurosci.34, 5658–5666. https://doi.org/10.1523/Jneurosci.4161-13.2014 (2014).
doi: 10.1523/Jneurosci.4161-13.2014
pubmed: 24741056
pmcid: 6608232
Hickey, C., Di Lollo, V. & McDonald, J. J. Electrophysiological indices of Target and Distractor Processing in Visual Search. J. Cogn. Neurosci.21, 760–775. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21039 (2009).
doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21039
pubmed: 18564048
Hickey, C., McDonald, J. J. & Theeuwes, J. Electrophysiological evidence of the capture of visual attention. J. Cogn. Neurosci.18, 604–613. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.4.604 (2006).
doi: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.4.604
pubmed: 16768363
Hilimire, M. R., Mounts, J. R., Parks, N. A. & Corballis, P. M. Dynamics of target and distractor processing in visual search: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Neurosci. Lett.495, 196–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2011.03.064 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2011.03.064
pubmed: 21457759
Gaspelin, N. et al. The Distractor Positivity Component and the inhibition of distracting stimuli. J. Cogn. Neurosci.35, 1693–1715. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_02051 (2023).
doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_02051
pubmed: 37677060
Kleiner, M., Brainard, D. & Pelli, D. What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? (2007).
Oostenveld, R., Fries, P., Maris, E., Schoffelen, J. M. & FieldTrip Open Source Software for Advanced Analysis of MEG, EEG, and Invasive Electrophysiological Data. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/156869 (2011).
doi: 10.1155/2011/156869
pubmed: 21822426
pmcid: 3148593
Maris, E. & Oostenveld, R. Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. J. Neurosci. Methods164, 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024 (2007).
doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024
pubmed: 17517438
Pernet, C. R., Wilcox, R. & Rousselet, G. A. Robust correlation analyses: false positive and power validation using a new open source matlab toolbox. Front. Psychol. 3, doi:ARTN 60610.3389/fpsyg.00606 (2013). (2012).
Walper, D., Bendixen, A., Grimm, S., Schubo, A. & Einhauser, W. Attention deployment in natural scenes: higher-order scene statistics rather than semantics modulate the N2pc component. J. Vis.24, 7. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.24.6.7 (2024).
doi: 10.1167/jov.24.6.7
pubmed: 38848099
pmcid: 11166226
Chelazzi, L., Miller, E. K., Duncan, J. & Desimone, R. Responses of neurons in macaque area V4 during memory-guided visual search. Cereb. Cortex11, 761–772. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/11.8.761 (2001).
doi: 10.1093/cercor/11.8.761
pubmed: 11459766
Kastner, S., De Weerd, P., Desimone, R. & Ungerleider, L. G. Mechanisms of directed attention in the human extrastriate cortex as revealed by functional MRI. Science282, 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5386.108 (1998).
doi: 10.1126/science.282.5386.108
pubmed: 9756472
Vanduffel, W., Tootell, R. B. & Orban, G. A. Attention-dependent suppression of metabolic activity in the early stages of the macaque visual system. Cereb. Cortex10, 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/10.2.109 (2000).
doi: 10.1093/cercor/10.2.109
pubmed: 10667980
Smith, A. T., Singh, K. D. & Greenlee, M. W. Attentional suppression of activity in the human visual cortex. Neuroreport11, 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200002070-00010 (2000).
doi: 10.1097/00001756-200002070-00010
pubmed: 10674469
Hopf, J. M., Boelmans, K., Schoenfeld, A. M., Heinze, H. J. & Luck, S. J. How does attention attenuate target-distractor interference in vision? Evidence from magnetoencephalographic recordings. Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res.15, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0926-6410(02)00213-6 (2002).
doi: 10.1016/s0926-6410(02)00213-6
pubmed: 12433380
Noonan, M. P., Crittenden, B. M., Jensen, O. & Stokes, M. G. Selective inhibition of distracting input. Behav. Brain Res.355, 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2017.10.010 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2017.10.010
pubmed: 29042157
Bartsch, M. V., Merkel, C., Schoenfeld, M. A. & Hopf, J. M. Attention expedites target selection by prioritizing the neural processing of distractor features. Commun. Biol.4, 814. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-02305-9 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s42003-021-02305-9
pubmed: 34188169
pmcid: 8242025
Drisdelle, B. L. & Eimer, M. P(D) components and distractor inhibition in visual search: new evidence for the signal suppression hypothesis. Psychophysiology58, e13878. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13878 (2021).
doi: 10.1111/psyp.13878
pubmed: 34110022
Gaspelin, N. & Luck, S. J. Distinguishing among potential mechanisms of Singleton suppression. J. Experimental Psychology-Human Percept. Perform.44, 626–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000484 (2018).
doi: 10.1037/xhp0000484
Burra, N. & Kerzel, D. Attentional capture during visual search is attenuated by target predictability: evidence from the N2pc, pd, and topographic segmentation. Psychophysiology50, 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12019 (2013).
doi: 10.1111/psyp.12019
pubmed: 23418888
Stilwell, B. T., Egeth, H. & Gaspelin, N. Electrophysiological evidence for the suppression of highly salient distractors. J. Cogn. Neurosci.34, 787–805. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01827 (2022).
doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_01827
pubmed: 35104346
Eimer, M. The N2PC component as an indicator of attentional selectivity. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol.99, 225–234 (1996).
doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(96)95711-9
pubmed: 8862112
Wiegand, I. et al. Event-related Electroencephalographic Lateralizations Mark Individual differences in spatial and nonspatial visual selection. J. Cogn. Neurosci.30, 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01221 (2018).
doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_01221
pubmed: 29244636
Wykowska, A. & Schubo, A. Action intentions modulate allocation of visual attention: electrophysiological evidence. Front. Psychol.3, 379. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00379 (2012).
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00379
pubmed: 23060841
pmcid: 3464057
Noonan, M. P. et al. Distinct mechanisms for distractor suppression and target facilitation. J. Neurosci.36, 1797–1807. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2133-15.2016 (2016).
doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2133-15.2016
pubmed: 26865606
pmcid: 4748069
Chang, S. & Egeth, H. E. Enhancement and suppression flexibly Guide attention. Psychol. Sci.30, 1724–1732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619878813 (2019).
doi: 10.1177/0956797619878813
pubmed: 31693453
Fortier-Gauthier, U., Dell’acqua, R. & Jolicoeur, P. The red-alert effect in visual search: evidence from human electrophysiology. Psychophysiology50, 671–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12050 (2013).
doi: 10.1111/psyp.12050
pubmed: 23577877
Sawaki, R. & Luck, S. J. Capture versus suppression of attention by salient singletons: electrophysiological evidence for an automatic attend-to-me signal. Atten. Percept. Psychophys.72, 1455–1470. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.6.1455 (2010).
doi: 10.3758/APP.72.6.1455
pubmed: 20675793
pmcid: 3705921
Gaspar, J. M., Christie, G. J., Prime, D. J., Jolicoeur, P. & McDonald, J. J. Inability to suppress salient distractors predicts low visual working memory capacity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.113, 3693–3698. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523471113 (2016).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1523471113
pubmed: 26903654
pmcid: 4822617
Bartolomeo, P. & Seidel Malkinson, T. Hemispheric lateralization of attention processes in the human brain. Curr. Opin. Psychol.29, 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.12.023 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.12.023
pubmed: 30711910
de Thiebaut, M. et al. A lateralized brain network for visuospatial attention. Nat. Neurosci.14, 1245–1246. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2905 (2011).
doi: 10.1038/nn.2905
Wolfe, J. M., O’Neill, P. & Bennett, S. C. Why are there eccentricity effects in visual search? Visual and attentional hypotheses. Percept. Psychophys.60, 140–156. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03211924 (1998).
doi: 10.3758/bf03211924
pubmed: 9503918
To, M. P., Gilchrist, I. D., Troscianko, T. & Tolhurst, D. J. Discrimination of natural scenes in central and peripheral vision. Vis. Res.51, 1686–1698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.05.010 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.05.010
pubmed: 21640747
Staugaard, C. F., Petersen, A. & Vangkilde, S. Eccentricity effects in vision and attention. Neuropsychologia92, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.06.020 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.06.020
pubmed: 27342258
pmcid: 5127899
Gruber, N. et al. Effects of age and eccentricity on visual target detection. Front. Aging Neurosci.5, 101. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2013.00101 (2013).
doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2013.00101
pubmed: 24474935
Carrasco, M., Evert, D. L., Chang, I. & Katz, S. M. The eccentricity effect - target eccentricity affects performance on conjunction searches. Percept. Psychophys.57, 1241–1261. doi:Doi 10.3758/Bf03208380. (1995).
doi: 10.3758/BF03208380
pubmed: 8539099
Kermani, M., Verghese, A. & Vidyasagar, T. R. Attentional asymmetry between visual hemifields is related to habitual direction of reading and its implications for debate on cause and effects of dyslexia. Dyslexia24, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1574 (2018).
doi: 10.1002/dys.1574
pubmed: 29214682
Rima, S., Kerbyson, G., Jones, E. & Schmid, M. C. Advantage of detecting visual events in the right hemifield is affected by reading skill. Vis. Res.169, 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2020.03.001 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2020.03.001
pubmed: 32172007