Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Mason, Luke
Publisher: Goldsmiths, University of London
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Action and perception have traditionally be studied in isolation, as separate and unitary cognitive processes. More recent evidence has demonstrated a lively interaction between the two. Preparing an action – either a saccade or a manual movement - causes enhanced processing of action-relevant stimuli in the environment, at the expense of the action-irrelevant. The aim of the research reported in this thesis are to provide further detail about this effect.\ud The experiments are reported in this thesis are concerned with how the spatial, temporal and functional properties of action affect perception. Chapter three reports an experiment in which the spatial properties of a grasped object, which make different demands of accuracy, were manipulated. The experiment in chapter four compared goal and effector locations, and measured visual processing across the time course of motor preparation. Chapter five reports an experiment that measured visual processing not just at goal and effector locations, but also at more distant locations not involved in movement, in order to estimate the spatial profile of the effect. \ud Results showed clear enhancement of goal and effector locations simultaneously during motor preparation, although the goal location was enhanced over a broader time period than the effector, suggesting the two components of movement are not equivalent in terms of the relative priorities assigned to them during motor preparation. The spatial profile of the effect fell-off with distance from the goal and effector, and is discussed in terms of theories concerning the spatial profile of visual attention. \ud Taken together, the results of all three experiments suggest that the processes initiated by motor preparation cause shifts in the patterns of perceptual facilitation and inhibition that ultimately achieve selectivity. The inclusion of the effector location in this process suggests that it is not limited to one representation at a time, but operates instead as a flexible and dynamic rebalancing of perception that adapts to any given cognitive task.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision research, 36(12), 1827-37.
    • Gitelman, D. R., Nobre, a C., Parrish, T. B., LaBar, K. S., Kim, Y. H., Meyer, J. R., & Mesulam, M. (1999). A large-scale distributed network for covert spatial attention: further anatomical delineation based on stringent behavioural and cognitive controls. Brain : a journal of neurology, 122(6), 1093-106.
    • Goodale, M., & Milner, A. (1992). Separate visual pathways tor perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15(1), 20-25.
    • Hodges, D. A. (1999). Darlington ' s Contributions to Transistor Circuit Design. Circuit Design, 46(1), 1995-1997.
    • Hoffman, J. E., & Subramaniam, B. (1995). The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 787-795.
    • Hopf, J. M., & Mangun, G. R. (2000). Shifting visual attention in space: an electrophysiological analysis using high spatial resolution mapping. Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 111(7), 1241-57.
    • Hunt, A. R., & Kingstone, A. (2003). Covert and overt voluntary attention: linked or independent? Cognitive Brain Research, 18(1), 102-105.
    • Jonides, J., & Yantis, S. (1988). Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 43(4), 346-354. Springer.
    • Khan, A. Z., Blangero, A., Rossetti, Y., Salemme, R., Luaute, J., & Bernard, C. (2009). Parietal Damage Dissociates Saccade Planning from Presaccadic Perceptual Facilitation. Cerebral Cortex, 19(2), 383-387.
    • LaBerge, D., & Brown, V. (1989). Theory of attentional operations in shape identification. Psychological Review, 96(I), 101-124.
    • Mangun, G.R., & Hillyard, S. A. (1991). Modulations of sensory-evoked brain potentials indicate changes in perceptual processing during visual-spatial priming. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 17(4), 1057-74.
    • Martinez, A., Anllo-Vento, L., Sereno, M. I., Frank, L. R., Buxton, R. B., Dubowitz, D. J., Wong, E. C., et al. (1999). Involvement of striate and extrastriate visual cortical areas in spatial attention. Nature neuroscience, 2(4), 364-9.
    • Nobre, A. C., Sebestyen, G. N., & Miniussi, C. (2000). The dynamics of shifting visuospatial attention revealed by event-related potentials. Neuropsychologia, 38(7), 964-74.
    • O'Craven, K. M., Downing, P. E., & Kanwisher, N. (1999). fMRI evidence for objects as the units of attentional selection. Nature, 401(6753), 584-7.
    • Roth, B. J., Ko, D., von Albertini-Carletti, I. R., Scaffidi, D., & Sato, S. (1997). Dipole localization in patients with epilepsy using the realistically shaped head model. Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology, 102(3), 159-66.
    • Schiegg, A., Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. (2003). Attentional selection during preparation of prehension movements. Psychology, 10(4), 409-432.
    • Schiller, P. H., & Tehovnik, E. J. (2001). Look and see: how the brain moves your eyes about. Progress in brain research, 134, 127-42.
    • Sperling, G., & Dosher, B. (1986). Strategy and optimization in human information processing. In K. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human (pp. 1-65). NY: Wiley.
    • Tipper, S. P., Lortie, C., & Baylis, G. (1992). Selective reaching: Evidence for actioncentered attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(4), 891-905.
    • Van Ettinger-Veenstra, H. M., Huijbers, W., Gutteling, T. P., Vink, M., Kenemans, J. L., & Neggers, S. F. W. (2009). fMRI-guided TMS on cortical eye fields: the frontal but not intraparietal eye fields regulate the coupling between visuospatial attention and eye movements. Journal of neurophysiology, 102(6), 3469-80.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article