Three experiments examined nonspatial extinction in G.K., a patient with bilateral parietal damage. Experiment 1 demonstrated nonspatial extinction (poor detection of a weak relative to a stronger perceptual group), even when the stronger group was less complex than the weaker group. Experiment 2 showed improved report of a letter falling at the location of the stronger group, but explicit judgments of the location of the letter were at chance. Experiment 3 replicated the object-cuing benefit, though G.K. could not discriminate whether a letter fell at the same location as the stronger perceptual group. The data indicate coupling between object- and space-based attention, so that spatial attention is drawn to the location occupied by the winner of object-based competition for selection. In this case, what cues where. This coupling operates implicitly, even when explicit location judgments are impaired.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BalintR. (1909). Seelenlahmung des “Schauens”: Optische ataxie, raumliche Storung der Aufmerksamkeit. Monatschrift für Neurologie und Psychiatrie, 25, 51–81.
2.
DesimoneR.DuncanJ. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193–222.
3.
DuncanJ. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 501–517.
4.
EglyR.DriverJ.RafalR.D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 161–177.
5.
EriksenC.W.YehY.-Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 583–597.
6.
Friedman-HillS.R.RobertsonL.C.TreismanA. (1995). Parietal contributions to vi sual feature binding: Evidence from a patient with bilateral lesions. Science, 269, 853–855.
7.
GilchristI.HumphreysG.W.RiddochM.J. (1996). Grouping and extinction: Evidence for low-level modulation of selection. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13, 1223–1256.
8.
HallD.HumphreysG.W.CooperA. (2001). Reading using supra-letter units: Evidence from attentional dyslexia. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 439–467.
9.
HeinkeD.HumphreysG.W. (2003). Attention, spatial representation and visual neglect: Simulating emergent attentional processes in the Selective Attention for Identification Model (SAIM). Psychological Review, 110, 29–87.
10.
HumphreysG.W. (1998). Neural representation of objects in space: A dual coding account. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 353, 1341–1352.
11.
HumphreysG.W.CinelC.WolfeJ.OlsonA.KlempenN. (2000). Fractionating the binding process: Neuropsychological evidence distinguishing binding of form from binding of surface features. Vision Research, 40, 1569–1596.
12.
HumphreysG.W.RiddochM.J. (1993). Interactions between object and space systems revealed through neuropsychology. InMeyerD.E.KornblumS.(Eds.), Attention and performance XIV (pp. 143–162). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
HumphreysG.W.RomaniC.OlsonA.RiddochM.J.DuncanJ. (1994). Non-spatial extinction following lesions of the parietal lobe in humans. Nature, 372, 357–359.
14.
KarnathH.-O. (1988). Deficits of attention in acute and recovered visual hemi-neglect. Neuropsychologia, 26, 27–43.
15.
KimM.-S.RobertsonL.C. (2001). Implicit representations of space after bilateral parietal lobe damage. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 1080–1087.
16.
ReesG.WojciulikE.ClarkeK.HusainM.FrithC.DriverJ. (2000). Unconscious activation of visual cortex in the damaged right hemisphere of a parietal patient with extinction. Brain, 123, 1624–1633.
17.
RensinkR.A.EnnsJ. (1995). Pre-emption effects in visual search: Evidence for low- level grouping. Psychological Review, 102, 101–130.
18.
RobertsonL.C.TreismanA.Friedman-HillS.GraboweckyM. (1997). A possible connection between spatial deficits and feature binding in a patient with parietal damage. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 295–317.
19.
TreismanA. (1998). Feature binding, attention and object perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 353, 1295–1306.
20.
VeceraS.P.FarahM.J. (1994). Does visual attention select objects or locations? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 146–160.
21.
WardR.GoodrichS. (1996). Differences between objects and non-objects in visual extinction: A competition for attention. Psychological Science, 7, 177–180.
22.
WardR.GoodrichS.DriverJ. (1994). Grouping reduces visual extinction: Neuropsychological evidence for weight-linkage in visual selection. Visual Cognition, 1, 101–130.
