Search

Author(s): Tirin Moore (corresponding author); Katherine M. Armstrong Several decades of psychophysical and neurophysiological studies have established that visual signals are enhanced at the locus of attention [1, 2, 3, [...]

A histidine residue was substituted at various sites in a pair of reference peptides and their helix stability and histidine pKa were estimated to find if a charged histidine side chain influences alpha-helix stability, even when histidine is in the central area of the helix. Helix stability is 0.01 M NaCl and is significantly influenced by the position of a charged histidine residue. Neutral or charged histidine can, through hydrogen bonding to a main-chain CO group, stabilize an isolated helix.

Recent studies suggest that trial-to-trial variability of neuronal spiking responses may provide important information about behavioral state. Observed changes in variability during sensory stimulation, attention, motor preparation, and visual discrimination suggest that variability may reflect the engagement of neurons in a behavioral task. We examined changes in spiking variability of frontal eye field (FEF) neurons in a change detection task requiring monkeys to remember a visually cued location and direct attention to that location while ignoring distracters elsewhere. In this task, the firing rates (FRs) of FEF neurons not only continuously reflect the location of the remembered cue and select targets, but also predict detection performance on a trial-by-trial basis. Changes in FEF response variability, as measured by the Fano factor (FF), showed clear dissociations from changes in FR. The FF declined in response to visual stimulation at all tested locations, even in the opposite hemifield, indicating much broader spatial tuning of the FF compared with the FR. Furthermore, despite robust spatial modulation of the FR throughout all epochs of the task, spatial tuning of the FF did not persist throughout the delay period, nor did it show attentional modulation. These results indicate that changes in variability, at least in the FEF, are most effectively driven by visual stimulation, while behavioral engagement is not sufficient. Instead, changes in variabilitymayreflect shifts in the balance between feedforward and recurrent sources of excitatory drive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neural responses are typically characterized by computing the mean firing rate, but response variability can exist across trials. Many studies have examined the effect of a stimulus on the mean response, but few have examined the effect on response variability. We measured neural variability in 13 extracellularly recorded datasets and one intracellularly recorded dataset from seven areas spanning the four cortical lobes in monkeys and cats. In every case, stimulus onset caused a decline in neural variability. This occurred even when the stimulus produced little change in mean firing rate. The variability decline was observed in membrane potential recordings, in the spiking of individual neurons and in correlated spiking variability measured with implanted 96-electrode arrays. The variability decline was observed for all stimuli tested, regardless of whether the animal was awake, behaving or anaesthetized. This widespread variability decline suggests a rather general property of cortex, that its state is stabilized by an input. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Voluntary attention is often allocated according to internally maintained goals. Recent evidence indicates that the frontal eye field (FEF) participates in the deployment of spatial attention, even in the absence of saccadic eye movements. In addition, many FEF neurons maintain persistent representations of impending saccades. However, the role of persistent activity in the general maintenance of spatial information, and its relationship to spatial attention, has not been explored. We recorded the responses of single FEF neurons in monkeys trained to remember cued locations in order to detect changes in targets embedded among distracters in a task that did not involve saccades. We found that FEF neurons persistently encoded the cued location throughout the trial during the delay period, when no visual stimuli were present, and during visual discrimination. Furthermore, FEF activity reliably predicted whether monkeys would detect the target change. Population analyses revealed that FEF neurons with persistent activity were more effective at selecting the target from among distracters than neurons lacking persistent activity. These results demonstrate that FEF neurons maintain spatial information in the absence of saccade preparation and suggest that this maintenance contributes to the selection of relevant visual stimuli. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: The influence of attention on visual cortical neurons has been described in terms of its effect on the structure of receptive fields (RFs), where multiple stimuli compete to drive neural responses and ultimately behavior. We stimulated the frontal eye field (FEF) of passively fixating monkeys and produced changes in V4 responses similar to known effects of voluntary attention. Subthreshold FEF stimulation enhanced visual responses at particular locations within the RF and altered the interaction between pairs of RF stimuli to favor those aligned with the activated FEF site. Thus, we could influence which stimulus drove the responses of individual V4 neurons. These results suggest that spatial signals involved in saccade preparation are used to covertly select among multiple stimuli appearing within the RFs of visual cortical neurons. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Covert spatial attention produces biases in perceptual performance and neural processing of behaviorally relevant stimuli in the absence of overt orienting movements. The neural mechanism that gives rise to these effects is poorly understood. This paper surveys past evidence of a relationship between oculomotor control and visual spatial attention and more recent evidence of a causal link between the control of saccadic eye movements by frontal cortex and covert visual selection. Both suggest that the mechanism of covert spatial attention emerges as a consequence of the reciprocal interactions between neural circuits primarily involved in specifying the visual properties of potential targets and those involved in specifying the movements needed to fixate them. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]