Visual selection of multiple movement goals [Elektronische Ressource] / vorgelegt von Daniel Baldauf

Daniel Baldauf

Sujets

• Psychologie

Informations

• Publié par: ludwig-maximilians-universitat_munchen
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2008
• Nombre de lectures: 18
• Langue: Deutsch
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 5 Mo

Extrait

Visual Selection of Multiple Movement
Goals
Inaugural-Dissertation
zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophie an der
Ludwig–Maximilians–Universitat¨ Munchen¨
vorgelegt von
Daniel Baldauf
Im Oktober 2007Tag der mundlichen¨ Prufung:¨ 15. Januar 2008
Prufer:¨
Prof. Dr. Heiner Deubel, Department fur¨ Psychologie, LMU
Prof. Dr. Hermann Muller¨ , fur¨ LMU
Prof. Dr. Benedikt Grothe, Department fur¨ Biologie, LMU
2Contents
1 OverviewandTheoreticalFramework 6
1.1 Vision is purposive and selective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Selection-for-saccades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 Attention before reaches and grasping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4 Neurophysiology of attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.5 Multiple movement goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.6 Splitting of attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2 Properties of attentional selection during the preparation of sequential
saccades 26
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2 Experiment 1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.2.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.2.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.2.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.3 Experiment 1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.3.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.3.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.3.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3Contents
2.4 Experiment 1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.4.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.4.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.4.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.5 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.5.1 Preparation of saccade sequences involves selective processing
of the movement-relevant targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.5.2 Evidence for the division of attention among non-contiguous
locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.5.3 Parallel allocation of attention to the movement-relevant targets 59
2.5.4 Neural mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3 Attentionalselectionofmultiplegoalpositionsbeforerapidreachingse-
quences 63
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.2 Experiment 2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.2.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.2.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.3 Experiment 2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.3.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.3.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.4.1 Visual selection of multiple movement goals . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.4.2 Relation to other recent ERP-studies on movement preparation 89
3.4.3 Spatially distinct foci of attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.4.4 Neural correlates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4Contents
4 Visualattentionduringthepreparationofbimanualmovements 95
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.2 Experiment 3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
4.2.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
4.2.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.2.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.3 Eperiment 3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4.3.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4.3.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.3.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4.4 Experiment 3.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4.4.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.4.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.4.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
4.5 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.5.1 Preparation of bimanual reaches involves allocation of atten-
tion to both goal locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.5.2 Parallel selection of both reach goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4.5.3 Manual and attentional asymmetries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.5.4 Independence of the type of cue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.5.5 Bimanual actions involve more attentional capacities than uni-
manual actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5 FinalConclusions 133
6 AppendixA.Germansummary/DeutscheZusammenfassung 140
51 OverviewandTheoretical
Framework
1.1 Visionispurposiveandselective
When inspecting a visual scene, viewers selectively process only certain parts or as-
pects in full detail. Most of the input is filtered out and discarded in order to econo-
mize the use of cognitive resources (Ullman, 1984). Visual perception is therefore not
a uniformly detailed representation of all stimuli in the scene. What we see is cru-
cially determined by our current interests, by what we do or intend to do. Such top-
down information about the current task (or immediate plans) has a strong impact
on how the various parts of the brain deal with sensory input. Compelling evidence
for this was provided, for instance, by studies that investigated observers’ sensitivity
to notice changes in their field of view. Wallis & Bulthof¨ f (2000) demonstrated in a
simulated driving environment that drivers and passengers have different sensitiv-
ities to artificial changes in the scene. Triesch and colleagues asked the participants
in their study to sort objects in a virtual reality (Triesch, Ballard, Hayhoe & Sulli-
van, 2003). The subjects often exhibited an astonishing inability to detect significant,
salient changes that sometimes happened right in their line of view or even to the
objects they were holding in their hands. On the contrary, they did not miss more
61 OverviewandTheoreticalFramework
subtle changes of objects in the scene that were immediately relevant for the task at
exactly the point in time when the changes occurred (see also Droll, Hayhoe, Triesch
& Sullivan, 2005).
Vision is not a passive processing of available information. Rather, vision has an
active nature and is flexibly adjusted to what is relevant for the ongoing behaviour
(see also Findlay & Gilchrist, 2005). Various studies documented the way humans
use specific aspects of the visual information by continuously reorienting their eyes
to task-related locations in everyday tasks, such as walking (Jovancevic et al., 2006),
steering a car (Land & Lee, 1994; Land, 1998), preparing a cup of tea (Land, Mennie &
Rusted, 1999) or a butter-jelly sandwich (Hayhoe, Shrivastava, Mruczek & Pelz, 2003).
Most importantly, however, visual input is not only selected by eye movements, that
- of course – determine which part of the surrounding visual environment can en-
ter the processing as a 2-D retinal image. Also covertly attending to an object in the
periphery facilitates visual perception at this location and allows for faster detection
(e.g., Posner, 1980; Shulman et al., 1979) by enhancing visual signals (e.g., Mangun
& Hillyard, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991; Luck & Hillyard, 1995; Luck, Hillyard, Mouloua,
Woldorff, Clark & Hawkins, 1994; Hawkins, Hillyard, Luck, Mouloua, Downing &
Woodward, 1990; Henderson, 1996; Hillyard & Munte, 1984; Michie, Bearpark, Craw-
ford, & Glue, 1987) and improving contrast sensitivity (Pestillo & Carrasco, 2005; Car-
rasco, Penpeci–Talgar & Eckstein, 2000). This is often a prerequisite for all features of
an object (which are processed in different visual modules) to be successfully inte-
grate and to be bound into object files (Treisman & Gelade, 1980) thus allowing for an
accurate identification of objects (Eriksen & Hoffman, 1972; Muller¨ & Rabbitt, 1989;
LaBerge & Brown, 1989). Further, the attentional selection often determines which ob-
jects access the visual short-term memory (Duncan, 1984; Bundesen, 1990) and later
guide behaviour.
71 OverviewandTheoreticalFramework
Reorienting of visual attention (covertly or overtly) is not always a voluntary act
but often an implicit process that may occur without being noticed