Back

Multivariate analysis of EEG activity indexes contingent and non-contingent attentional capture

Munneke, J.; Fahrenfort, J. J.; Sutterer, D.; Theeuwes, J.; Awh, E.

2019-08-20 neuroscience
10.1101/734004 bioRxiv
Show abstract

It is well known that salient yet irrelevant singleton can capture attention, even when this is inconsistent with the current goals of the observer (Theeuwes, 1992; 2010). Others however have claimed that capture is critically contingent on the goals of the observer: Capture is strongly modulated (or even eliminated) when the irrelevant singleton does not match the target-defining properties (Folk, Remington, & Johnston, 1992). There has been a long-standing debate on whether attentional capture can be explained by goal-driven and/or stimulus-driven accounts. Here, we shed further light on this phenomenon by using EEG activity (raw EEG and alpha power) to provide a time-resolved index of attentional orienting. Participants searched for a target defined by a pre-specified color. The search display was preceded by a singleton cue that either matched the color of the upcoming target (contingent cues), or that appeared in an irrelevant color (non-contingent cues). Multivariate analysis of raw EEG and alpha power revealed preferential tuning to the location of both contingent and non-contingent cues, with a stronger bias towards contingent than non-contingent cues. The time course of these effects, however, depended on the neural signal. Raw EEG data revealed attentional orienting towards the cue early on in the trial (>156 ms), while alpha power revealed sustained spatial selection in the cued locations at a later moment in the trial (>250 ms). Moreover, while raw EEG showed stronger capture by contingent cues during this early time window, the advantage for contingent cues arose during a later time window in alpha band activity. Thus, our findings suggest that raw EEG activity and alpha-band power tap into distinct neural processes that index movements of covert spatial attention. Both signals provide clear neural evidence that both contingent and non-contingent cues can capture attention, and that this process is robustly shaped by the target-defining properties in the current block of trials.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.