Differential activation of frontoparietal attention networks by social and symbolic spatial cues.

Center for the Study of Brain Mind and Behavior, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (Impact Factor: 5.04). 03/2010; 5(4):432-40. DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsq008
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Perception of both gaze-direction and symbolic directional cues (e.g. arrows) orient an observer's attention toward the indicated location. It is unclear, however, whether these similar behavioral effects are examples of the same attentional phenomenon and, therefore, subserved by the same neural substrate. It has been proposed that gaze, given its evolutionary significance, constitutes a 'special' category of spatial cue. As such, it is predicted that the neural systems supporting spatial reorienting will be different for gaze than for non-biological symbols. We tested this prediction using functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure the brain's response during target localization in which laterally presented targets were preceded by uninformative gaze or arrow cues. Reaction times were faster during valid than invalid trials for both arrow and gaze cues. However, differential patterns of activity were evoked in the brain. Trials including invalid rather than valid arrow cues resulted in a stronger hemodynamic response in the ventral attention network. No such difference was seen during trials including valid and invalid gaze cues. This differential engagement of the ventral reorienting network is consistent with the notion that the facilitation of target detection by gaze cues and arrow cues is subserved by different neural substrates.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Behaviour and neuroimaging studies have shown that poor vigilance (PV) due to sleep deprivation (SD) negatively affects exogenously cued selective attention. In the current study, we assessed the impact of PV due to both partial SD and night-time hours on reflexive attentional orienting triggered by central un-informative eye-gaze and arrow cues. Subjective mood and interference performance in emotional Stroop task were also investigated. Twenty healthy participants performed spatial cueing tasks using central directional arrow and eye-gaze as a cue to orient attention. The target was a word written in different coloured inks. The participant's task was to identify the colour of the ink while ignoring the semantic content of the word (with negative or neutral emotional valence). The experiment took place on 2 days. On the first day, each participant performed a 10-min training session of the spatial cueing task. On the second day, half of participants performed the task once at 4:30 p.m. (BSL) and once at 6:30 a.m. (PV), whereas the other half performed the task in the reversed order. Results showed that mean reaction times on the spatial cueing tasks were worsened by PV, although gaze paradigm was more resistant to this effect as compared to the arrow paradigm. Moreover, PV negatively affects attentional orienting triggered by both central un-informative gaze and arrow cues. Finally, prolonged wakefulness affects self-reported mood but does not influence interference control in emotional Stroop task.
    Cognitive Processing 04/2014; · 1.57 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Eye gaze is a powerful cue for orienting attention in space. Studies examining whether gaze and symbolic cues recruit the same neural mechanisms have found mixed results. We tested whether there is a specialized attentional mechanism for social cues. We separately measured BOLD activity during orienting and reorienting attention following predictive gaze and symbolic cues. Results showed that gaze and symbolic cues exerted their influence through the same neural networks but also produced some differential modulations. Dorsal frontoparietal regions in left intraparietal sulcus (IPS) and bilateral MT(+)/lateral occipital cortex only showed orienting effects for symbolic cues, whereas right posterior IPS showed larger validity effects following gaze cues. Both exceptions may reflect the greater automaticity of gaze cues: Symbolic orienting may require more effort, while disengaging attention during reorienting may be more difficult following gaze cues. Face-selective regions, identified with a face localizer, showed selective activations for gaze cues reflecting sensory processing but no attentional modulations. Therefore, no evidence was found linking face-selective regions to a hypothetical, specialized mechanism for orienting attention to gaze cues. However, a functional connectivity analysis showed greater connectivity between face-selective regions and right posterior IPS, posterior STS, and inferior frontal gyrus during gaze cueing, consistent with proposals that face-selective regions may send gaze signals to parts of the dorsal and ventral frontoparietal attention network. Finally, although the default-mode network is thought to be involved in social cognition, this role does not extend to gaze orienting as these regions were more deactivated following gaze cues and showed less functional connectivity with face-selective regions during gaze cues.
    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 08/2013; · 4.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In highly social groups like human and non human primates, gaze and pointing cues are fundamentally important for directing the attention of conspecifics. Although neuroimaging studies indicate that shifts of attention triggered by observation of social cues activate the onlookers’ fronto-parietal cortices, information on whether these regions play a causative role in orienting and re-orienting of social attention is lacking. To advance our understanding of this, we used event-related repetitive dual pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation to interfere with neural activity in the right frontal eye field (rFEF) and posterior parietal cortex (rPPC). This procedure allowed us to explore how inhibiting rFEF and rPPC influences shifts of attention triggered by the observation of body-related (gaze and hand) and non body-related (arrow) directional distractors. Participants were asked to perform a leftward or rightward pointing movement according to the color change of a central imperative signal while ignoring a distractor, which was either a gaze, a pointing hand or an arrow. Stimulation of rPPC in a region supposedly linked to attentional re-orienting and to planning and execution of upper limb movements increased the reflexive tendency to follow distracting pointing hands but not oriented gaze or arrows. These findings suggest that inhibition of cortical structures that control attentional shifts triggered by social stimuli brings forth an increase of the cost of attentional re-orienting. Moreover, our results provide the first causative evidence that reflexive social attention in humans may be coded according to body-part-centered frames of reference.
    Neuropsychologia 01/2014; · 3.48 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 20, 2014