Cited by 146Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Spatial attention, precision, and Bayesian inference: a study of saccadic response speed

Open access
Vossel, Simone, Mathys, Christoph, Daunizeau, Jean, Bauer, Markus, Driver, Jon, Friston, Karl J., Stephan, Klaas E.·2014·Cerebral Cortex

Abstract

Inferring the environment's statistical structure and adapting behavior accordingly is a fundamental modus operandi of the brain. A simple form of this faculty based on spatial attentional orienting can be studied with Posner's location-cueing paradigm in which a cue indicates the target location with a known probability. The present study focuses on a more complex version of this task, where probabilistic context (percentage of cue validity) changes unpredictably over time, thereby creating a volatile environment. Saccadic response speed (RS) was recorded in 15 subjects and used to estimate subject-specific parameters of a Bayesian learning scheme modeling the subjects' trial-by-trial updates of beliefs. Different response models-specifying how computational states translate into observable behavior-were compared using Bayesian model selection. Saccadic RS was most plausibly explained as a function of the precision of the belief about the causes of sensory input. This finding is in accordance with current Bayesian theories of brain function, and specifically with the proposal that spatial attention is mediated by a precision-dependent gain modulation of sensory input. Our results provide empirical support for precision-dependent changes in beliefs about saccade target locations and motivate future neuroimaging and neuropharmacological studies of how Bayesian inference may determine spatial attention.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cercor/bhs418

Cites

138 of 138 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The HGF explains learning and decision-making under volatility better than other commonly used models.

    “This formulation has found successful application in several recent studies with healthy participants, showing that the HGF explains learning and decision-making under volatility better than other commonly used models (111–113).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vossel, S., Mathys, C., Daunizeau, J., Bauer, M., Driver, J., Friston, K. J., & Stephan, K. E.
Affiliations
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Vossel, Simone
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2013-01-14
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
1436-1450
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W2116311105
Cited by
146
References
137
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 2
FWCI
7.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • SDL (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • JuSER (Forschungszentrum Jülich) (submittedVersion)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (091593, 088130)
  • Royal Society
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • SystemsX.ch
  • René und Susanne Braginsky Stiftung
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
spatial attention, Bayesian inference, cue validity, belief updating, Bayesian model selection, attentional orienting, perceptual uncertainty
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Attention, Bayes Theorem, Cues, Female, Fixation, Ocular, Humans, Learning, Male, Models, Psychological, Neuropsychological Tests, Probability, Reaction Time, Saccades, Space Perception, Task Performance and Analysis, Reproducibility of Results, Eye Movement Measurements, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review