Neuroscience 2004 Abstract
| Presentation Number: | 202.10 |
|---|---|
| Abstract Title: | Differential neural processing of selective attention vs intention. |
| Authors: |
Stein, E. A.*1
; Ross, T. J.1
; Zhang, Y. Q.1
; Wolkenberg, F. A.1
1Neuroimaging Res. Br., Nat'l Inst Drug Abuse-IRP, Baltimore, MD |
| Primary Theme and Topics |
Cognition and Behavior - Human Cognition, Behavior, and Anatomy -- Attention |
| Session: |
202. Attention I Poster |
| Presentation Time: | Sunday, October 24, 2004 9:00 AM-10:00 AM |
| Location: | San Diego Convention Center - Hall A-H, Board # JJ18 |
| Keywords: | attention, fmri, cognition |
Distinct neural mechanisms are hypothesized to mediate the separate cognitive processes of selective attention (what information to process) and intention (output selection). Separating the circuitry that determines what information to process from that responsible for the preparation for action has important clinical implications. As such, we subjected 9 healthy control subjects to an event related fMRI paradigm that independently manipulated attentional and intentional cues based on Verfaellie et al (Neuropsychologia 26, 435, 1988). The task consists of trials each with 1 of 3 prime types (an arrow predicting target location, an image of a hand predicting response or a neutral prime), 20% invalid, followed by a target that determines which hand responds. Whole brain EPI was obtained (Siemens 3T) over 5 runs, each 260 s in duration with TR=2.3 s. Data were modeled with the GLM with regressors for combinations of prime, hand, target side and correct/incorrect, convolved with a hemodynamic response. Behavioral analysis of RT revealed a significant decrease for congruent trials for both prime types and a stimulus side X hand side interaction (faster for target on the same side as hand), consistent with Verfaellie. Those regions where response preparation (intention) was greater than during selective attention included the IFG, MFG, Ant cingulate, caudate, thalamus, cerebellum and insula. It may be that during hand priming, subjects need only worry about one hand, but need to divide their visual attention, resulting in larger activation, whereas during arrow priming, subjects need only attend to one location, but need to prepare to move either hand, also leading to larger activation. Incongruent trials (collapsing intention and attention) resulted in enhanced activation in L nucleus accumbens, IPL, cerebellum and R IFG and MFG. This pattern of structures may reflect the need to interrupt ongoing cognitive activity while perhaps also reflecting task expectation mismatch.
Sample Citation:
[Authors]. [Abstract Title]. Program No. XXX.XX. 2004 Neuroscience Meeting Planner. San Diego, CA: Society for Neuroscience, 2004. Online.
Copyright © 2004-2025 Society for Neuroscience; all rights reserved. Permission to republish any abstract or part of any abstract in any form must be obtained in writing by SfN office prior to publication.
