Separating top-down and bottom-up cueing of attention from response inhibition in utilization behavior

A single case study of a patient (FK) with utilization disorder following bilateral damage to medial frontal and anterior temporal cortices is reported. FK had to localize a search target following presentation of an earlier verbal or visual cue. Search was strongly affected by semantic/visual associations between the cue and search items. Although FK was unable to name the hue of an incongruent Stroop word, his attention was drawn to a color in the display matching the hue of the cue word. FK's ability to inhibit a response activated by the cueing of attention was impaired. There is dissociation between top-down attention cueing and response inhibition.

[1]  Antje S. Meyer,et al.  Electrophysiological Evidence of Semantic Interference in Visual Search , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[2]  Dietmar Heinke,et al.  Featural guidance in conjunction search: the contrast between orientation and color. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  Christian N. L. Olivers,et al.  The time course of working memory effects on visual attention , 2010 .

[4]  C. Olivers.  What drives memory-driven attentional capture , 2010 .

[5]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Constraints on task-based control of behaviour following frontal lobe damage: A single-case study , 2009, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[6]  Min-Shik Kim,et al.  Do the contents of working memory capture attention? Yes, but cognitive control matters. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Christian N L Olivers,et al.  What drives memory-driven attentional capture? The effects of memory type, display type, and search type. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  David Soto,et al.  Electrophysiological evidence for attentional guidance by the contents of working memory , 2009, The European journal of neuroscience.

[9]  Eva Belke,et al.  Top-down effects of semantic knowledge in visual search are modulated by cognitive but not perceptual load , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Stressing the mind: The effect of cognitive load and articulatory suppression on attentional guidance from working memory , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Dissociating the neural mechanisms of memory-based guidance of visual selection , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  David Soto,et al.  Automatic guidance of visual attention from verbal working memory. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Feature-based memory-driven attentional capture: visual working memory content affects visual attention. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  Dietmar Heinke,et al.  Working memory can guide pop-out search , 2006, Vision Research.

[15]  Maro G. Machizawa,et al.  Neural measures reveal individual differences in controlling access to working memory , 2005, Nature.

[16]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Early, involuntary top-down guidance of attention from working memory. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  G. Humphreys,et al.  On the Interaction Between Perceptual and Response Selection: Neuropsychological Evidence , 2003, Neurocase.

[18]  L. Chelazzi,et al.  Associative knowledge controls deployment of visual selective attention , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[19]  Takatsune Kumada,et al.  Cross-dimensional interference and cross-trial inhibition , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  G. Humphreys,et al.  The Role of Semantic Knowledge in Short-term Memory , 2002, Neurocase.

[21]  Z Kourtzi,et al.  Representation of Perceived Object Shape by the Human Lateral Occipital Complex , 2001, Science.

[22]  A. Baddeley.  The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[23]  P. Downing,et al.  Interactions Between Visual Working Memory and Selective Attention , 2000, Psychological science.

[24]  G. Humphreys,et al.  NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE DISTINGUISHING OBJECT SELECTION FROM ACTION (EFFECTOR) SELECTION , 2000, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[25]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  One more cup of coffee for the road: object–action assemblies, response blocking and response capture after frontal lobe damage , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[26]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Visual affordances direct action: neuropsychological evidence from manual interference. , 1998, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[27]  Glyn W Humphreys,et al.  AGNOSIA WITHOUT PROSOPAGNOSIA OR ALEXIA: EVIDENCE FOR STORED VISUAL MEMORIES SPECIFIC TO OBJECTS. , 1998, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[28]  F. Lhermitte.  'Utilization behaviour' and its relation to lesions of the frontal lobes. , 1983, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[29]  T. Klingberg,et al.  Prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia control access to working memory , 2008, Nature Neuroscience.

[30]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Disordered action schema and action disorganisation syndrome , 1998 .