Cited by 95Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Integration of Exogenous Input into a Dynamic Salience Map Revealed by Perturbing Attention

Open access
Balan, Puiu F, Gottlieb, Jacqueline·2006·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Although it is widely accepted that exogenous and voluntary factors jointly determine the locus of attention, the rules governing the integration of these factors are poorly understood. We investigated neural responses in the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) to transient, distracting visual perturbations presented during task performance. Monkeys performed a covert search task in which they discriminated the orientation of a target embedded among distractors, and brief visual perturbations were presented at various moments and locations during task performance. LIP neurons responded to perturbations consisting of the appearance of new objects, as well as to abrupt changes in the color, luminance, or position of existing objects. The LIP response correlated with the bottom-up behavioral effects of different perturbation types. In addition, neurons showed two types of top-down modulations. One modulation was a context-specific multiplicative gain that affected perturbation, target, and distractor activity in a spatially nonspecific manner. Gain was higher in blocks of trials in which perturbations directly marked target location than in blocks in which they invariably appeared opposite the target, thus encoding a behavioral context defined by the statistical contingency between target and perturbation location. A second modulation reflected local competitive interactions with search-related activity, resulting in the converse effect: weaker perturbation-evoked responses if perturbations appeared at the location of the target than if they appeared opposite the target. Thus, LIP encodes an abstract dimension of salience, which is shaped by local and global top-down mechanisms. These interacting mechanisms regulate responsiveness to external input as a function of behavioral context and momentary task demands.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.1898-06.2006

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Reward-related activity has been observed in areas consistently associated with the attentional network and believed to represent a form of priority map, most notably area LIP/IPS, frontal eye field (FEF), and the SC.

    “reward-related activity has been observed in areas consistently associated with the attentional network and believed to represent a form of priority map (e.g., Balan & Gottlieb, 2006; Bisley & Goldberg, 2010; Corbetta & Shulman, 2002; Gottlieb, Kusunoki, & Goldberg, 1998; Li, 2002; Mazer & Gallant, 2003), most notably area LIP/IPS, frontal eye field (FEF), and the SC”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Balan & Gottlieb, 2006

    The Introduction describes LIP as a proposed salience representation, and Neural responses reports LIP activity tracking a task-relevant target. The cited paper does not establish that this activity is reward-related or provide evidence for the claim about FEF and the superior colliculus. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Competition for neural representation is a dominant attribute along the entire hierarchy of visual cortex, which might explain why many different areas have been suggested to constitute a priority map.

    “The notion that competition for neural representation is a dominant attribute along the entire hierarchy of the visual cortex might also explain why many different areas have been suggested to constitute a priority map (e.g., Balan & Gottlieb, 2006; Bisley & Goldberg, 2010; Li, 2002; Mazer & Gallant, 2003).”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Balan & Gottlieb, 2006

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
Balan, P. F., & Gottlieb, J.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2006-09-06
Volume
26
Issue
36
Pages
9239-9249
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1964571175
Cited by
95
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • McKnight Endowment Fund for Neuroscience
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • W. M. Keck Foundation
  • McKnight Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (5r24ey015634-05)
  • National Eye Institute (R24 EY-015634)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
lateral intraparietal area, visual attention, salience, bottom-up attention, top-down modulation, distractor suppression, gain modulation, competitive interactions, behavioral context
MeSH terms
Animals, Attention, Brain Mapping, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Fixation, Ocular, Macaca mulatta, Parietal Lobe, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Task Performance and Analysis, Volition

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