4.6 Article

The spatial distribution of attentional selectivity in touch: evidence from somatosensory ERP components

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 114, 期 7, 页码 1298-1306

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1388-2457(03)00107-X

关键词

selective attention; somatosensory; event-related brain potential; spatial cognition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Somatosensory event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were measured to investigate the spatial distribution of selective attention in touch, and whether the focus of tactile attention can be split between non-contiguous areas of the body surface. Methods: On each trial, vibratory tactile stimuli were delivered to one of 4 possible locations of the right hand. Participants had to attend to either one or two locations in order to detect infrequently presented target stimuli there. ERPs were recorded to tactile non-targets at attended and unattended locations. Results: Attention directed to one finger versus another was reflected by amplitude modulations of the sensory-specific P100 component and a subsequent attentional negativity (Nd). These effects were smaller for within-finger as compared to between-finger selection. When attention was directed simultaneously to non-adjacent fingers, ERPs in response to stimuli delivered to spatially and anatomically intervening fingers showed no attentional modulations whatsoever. Conclusions: Allocating tactile-spatial attention to one finger versus another affects early modality-specific somatosensory processing stages, and these effects of within-hand attentional selectivity decrease gradually with increasing distance from the current attentional focus. Unlike vision, the focus of tactile attention can be split, and directed simultaneously to non-adjacent areas, thus excluding spatially and anatomically intermediate regions from attentional processing. (C) 2003 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据