Search

The ability to detect an incoming visual stimulus is enhanced by knowledge of stimulus location (orienting of visuospatial attention). Although the brain mechanisms at the basis of this enhancement are not yet fully clarified, there is evidence that orienting of attention is accompanied by the activation of oculomotor circuits. It remains unclear, however, whether this oculomotor activity is an epiphenomenon or is functionally related to the attentional process. Attentional benefits are usually measured by the classical Posner paradigm. When subjects fixate centrally and are requested to detect a visual stimulus that could appear in an attended or unattended location, they react faster to stimuli appearing in the attended one. Here, we demonstrate that in monocular vision visuospatial attention was significantly modulated by the position of the eye in the orbit. When the screen was placed 40 degrees to the right or to the left of subjects' sagittal plane, attentional benefits for stimuli appearing in subjects' temporal spatial hemifield dramatically decayed, even if the retinal stimulation was exactly the same as in the classical paradigm. The finding that eyes and attention show a common limit stop point supports their close functional coupling.

Patients affected by VI cranial nerve palsy were required to orient their attention in monocular vision and to detect a stimulus appearing either in attended or in unattended locations. Results showed that while during non-paretic eye vision stimulus detection in the attended location was faster than that in the unattended one, during paretic eye vision no difference in detection speed was present. However, in this latter condition, detection speed in both attended and un attended locations were as fast as that measured during non-paretic eye vision in attended location. Demonstration that peripheral oculomotor impairment influences monocular covert orienting of visuospatial attention strongly support the idea that visuospatial attention and oculomotor mechanisms share similar cortical networks.

Five experiments investigated whether preparation of a grasping movement affects detection and discrimination of visual stimuli. Normal human participants were required to prepare to grasp a bar and then to grasp it as fast as possible on presentation of a visual stimulus. On the basis of the degree of sharing of their intrinsic properties with those of the to-be-grasped bar, visual stimuli were categorized as "congruent" or "incongruent." Results showed that grasping reaction times to congruent visual stimuli were faster than reaction times to incongruent ones. These data indicate that preparation to act on an object produces faster processing of stimuli congruent with that object. The same facilitation was present also when, after the preparation of hand grasping, participants were suddenly instructed to inhibit the prepared grasping movement and to respond with a different motor effector. The authors suggest that these findings could represent an extension of the premotor theory of attention, from orienting of attention to spatial locations to orienting of attention to graspable objects.

The aim of the present study was to investigate how spatial attention influences directional manual and saccadic reaction times. Two experiments were carried out. In experiment 1 subjects were instructed to perform pointing responses toward targets that were located either in the same or the opposite hemifield with respect to the hemifield in which an imperative stimulus was presented. In experiment 2, they were instructed to make saccadic or pointing responses. The direction of the responses was indicated by the shape of the imperative stimulus. Reaction time (RT), movement time, and, in experiment 2, saccadic trajectory were measured. The imperative stimulus location was either cued (endogenous attention) or uncued. In the latter case the imperative stimulus presentation attracted attention (exogenous attention). The main results of the experiments were the following: First, exogenous attention markedly decreased the RTs when the required movement was directed toward the imperative stimulus location. This directional effect was much stronger for pointing than for ocular responses. Second, endogenously allocated attention did not influence differentially RTs of pointing responses directed toward or away the attended hemifield. In contrast, endogenous attention markedly favored the saccadic responses when made away from the cued hemifield. Third, regardless of cueing, the direction of movement affected both pointing and saccadic reaction times. Saccadic reaction times were faster when the required movement was directed upward, while manual reaction times were faster when the movement was directed downward. Fourth, lateralized spatial attention deviated the trajectory of the saccades contralateral to the attention location. This pattern of results supports the notion that spatial attention depends on the activation of the same sensorimotor circuits that program actions in space.

Normal subjects were required to make horizontal or vertical saccades at the presentation of visual or acoustic imperative stimuli. The locations of visual imperative stimuli were orthogonal to the required saccade. Before stimulus presentation the subjects were cued about its location and instructed to allocate attention to it without moving the eyes. The main aim of the experiment was to establish whether the trajectory of horizontal saccades would be modified by spatial attention. The results showed that, with respect to the condition in which attention was on the horizontal meridian, the allocation of attention to the upper hemifield determined a downward saccade deviation, while the allocation to the lower hemifield determined an opposite deviation. The data strongly support the view that spatial attention and saccade programming share the same neural substrates.