Search Results (2)

Elevated distractibility is one of the major contributors to alcohol hangover-induced behavioral deficits. Yet, the basic mechanisms driving increased distractibility during hangovers are still not very well understood. Aside from impairments in attention and psychomotor functions, changes in stimulus-response bindings may also increase responding to distracting information, as suggested by the theory of event coding (TEC). Yet, this has never been investigated in the context of alcohol hangover. Therefore, we investigated whether alcohol hangover has different effects on target-response bindings and distractor-response bindings using a task that allows to differentiate these two phenomena. A total of n = 35 healthy males aged 19 to 28 were tested once sober and once hungover after being intoxicated in a standardized experimental drinking setting the night before (2.64 gr of alcohol per estimated liter of body water). We found that alcohol hangover reduced distractor-response bindings, while no such impairment was found for target-response bindings, which appeared to be unaffected. Our findings imply that the processing of distracting information is most likely not increased, but in fact decreased by hangover. This suggests that increased distractibility during alcohol hangover is most likely not caused by modulations in distractor-response bindings. Full article

How do we find a target object in a cluttered visual scene? Targets carrying unique salient features can be found in parallel without directing attention, whereas targets defined by feature conjunctions or non-salient features need to be scrutinized in a serial attentional process in order to be identified. In this article, we review a series of experiments in which we used fMRI to probe the neural basis of this active search process in the human brain. In all experiments, we compared the fMRI signal between a difficult and an easy visual search (each performed without eye movements) in order to isolate neural activity reflecting the search process from other components such as stimulus responses and movementrelated activity. The difficult search was either a conjunction search or a hard feature search and compared with an easy feature search, matched in visual stimulation and motor requirements. During both, the conjunction search and the hard feature search the frontal eye fields (FEF) and three parietal regions located in the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) were differentially activated: the anterior and posterior part of the intraparietal sulcus (AIPS, PIPS) as well as the junction of the intraparietal with the transverse occipital sulcus (IPTO). Only in PIPS, the modulation strength was most indistinguishable between conjunction and hard feature search. In a further experiment we showed that AIPS and IPTO are involved in visual conjunction search even in the absence of distractors; by contrast, the involvement of PIPS seems to depend on the presence of distractors. Taken together, these findings from these experiments demonstrate that all four key nodes of the human ’frontoparietal attention network’ are generally engaged in the covert selection process of visual search. But they also suggest that these areas play differential roles, perhaps reflecting different sub-processes in active search. We conclude by discussing a number of such sub-processes, such as the direction of spatial attention, visual feature binding, and the active suppression of distractors. Full article