Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Jan 21;6(1):e16276.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016276.

Stimulus saliency modulates pre-attentive processing speed in human visual cortex

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Stimulus saliency modulates pre-attentive processing speed in human visual cortex

Thomas Töllner et al. PLoS One. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

The notion of a saliency-based processing architecture [1] underlying human vision is central to a number of current theories of visual selective attention [e.g., 2]. On this view, focal-attention is guided by an overall-saliency map of the scene, which integrates (sums) signals from pre-attentive sensory feature-contrast computations (e.g., for color, motion, etc.). By linking the Posterior Contralateral Negativity (PCN) component to reaction time (RT) performance, we tested one specific prediction of such salience summation models: expedited shifts of focal-attention to targets with low, as compared to high, target-distracter similarity. For two feature-dimensions (color and orientation), we observed decreasing RTs with increasing target saliency. Importantly, this pattern was systematically mirrored by the timing, as well as amplitude, of the PCN. This pattern demonstrates that visual saliency is a key determinant of the time it takes for focal-attention to be engaged onto the target item, even when it is just a feature singleton.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stimulus displays used in the present visual pop-out binary localization task.
Participants were required to give a speeded forced-choice response indicating the position (left vs. right hemi-field) of the feature singleton, which was selected randomly from one of the six lateral positions on the middle circle.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Behavioural results.
(a) Reaction times (lines) and error rates (bars) as a function of Saliency (High, Middle, Low) for orientation-defined (pop-out) targets. (b) Reaction times (lines) and error rates (bars) as a function of Saliency (High, Middle, Low) for color-defined (pop-out) targets.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Grand averaged event-related brain potentials elicited in response to color-defined (pop-out) targets at electrodes PO7/PO8.
(a) Waveforms contra- and ipsilateral to the singleton location. (b) Topographical maps of PCN scalp distributions for each of the three Salience conditions (High, Middle, Low) at the point in time when the difference between contra- and ipsilateral waveforms reached its maximum. These maps were computed by mirroring the contra-ipsilateral difference waves to obtain symmetrical voltage values for both hemispheres (using spherical spline interpolation). (c) PCN difference waves obtained by subtracting ipsilateral from contralateral activity for each of the three Salience conditions (High, Middle, Low).
Figure 4
Figure 4. Grand averaged event-related brain potentials elicited in response to orientation-defined (pop-out) targets at electrodes PO7/PO8.
(a) Waveforms contra- and ipsilateral to the singleton location. (b) Topographical maps of PCN scalp distributions for each of the three Salience conditions (High, Middle, Low) at the point in time when the difference between contra- and ipsilateral waveforms reached its maximum. These maps were computed by mirroring the contra-ipsilateral difference waves to obtain symmetrical voltage values for both hemispheres (using spherical spline interpolation). (c) PCN difference waves obtained by subtracting ipsilateral from contralateral activity for each of the three Salience conditions (High, Middle, Low).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Itti L, Koch C. Computational Modeling of Visual Attention. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2001;2(3):194–203. - PubMed
    1. Wolfe JM. Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin Review. 1994;1:202–238. - PubMed
    1. Koch C, Ullman S. Shifts in selective visual attention: towards the underlying neural circuitry. Human Neurobiology. 1985;4:219–227. - PubMed
    1. Nothdurft HC. Salience from feature contrast: variations with texture density. Vision Research. 2000;40(23):3181–3200. - PubMed
    1. Krummenacher J, Müller HJ, Heller D. Visual search for dimensionally redundant pop-out targets: evidence for parallel-coactive processing of dimensions. Perception and Psychophysics. 2002;63:901–917. - PubMed

Publication types