Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 1, 2026
07:09
Gaze in Action: Head-mounted Eye Tracking of Children's Dynamic Visual Attention During Naturalistic Behavior
Published on: November 14, 2018
10.4K
Hemifield Specificity of Attention Response Functions during Multiple-Object Tracking
Marvin R Maechler1, Eunhye Choe2, Patrick Cavanagh3
1Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755 Marvin.R.Maechler.GR@dartmouth.edu.
Summary
Tracking multiple objects engages brain networks, with activity varying based on target location. This study reveals hemifield biases in attention response functions, potentially explaining tracking limits.
Area of Science:
- Cognitive Neuroscience
- Neuroimaging
- Visuospatial Attention
Background:
- Multiple object tracking (MOT) difficulty increases with target number, modulating brain activity in attention networks.
- Attention Response Functions (ARFs) describe load-dependent activity, but hemispheric or hemifield imbalances were unexamined.
- Spatial attention exhibits hemifield/hemispheric effects, such as hemispatial neglect and capacity limits.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate whether hemispheric or hemifield imbalances exist in Attention Response Functions (ARFs).
- To determine how the number of tracked objects (load) influences brain activity across different visual hemifields.
- To extend the understanding of load-based ARFs by incorporating hemifield bias.
Main Methods:
- Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) using Blood-Oxygen-Level-Dependent (BOLD) signal.
- Participants (n=19) performed a multiple object tracking task with varying target loads.
- Analysis focused on differential brain activity related to contralateral versus ipsilateral target presentation.
Main Results:
- The number of tracked objects modulated activity bilaterally across a wide network of brain areas.
- Earlier visual stream areas showed contralateral load effects, while later areas responded to ipsilateral load.
- The dorsal attention network (parietal and frontal lobes) was significantly influenced by both contra- and ipsilateral load.
- Some occipital regions were more sensitive to contralateral than ipsilateral load.
Conclusions:
- The study extends the canonical view of load-based ARFs to include hemifield bias.
- Hemifield-preferring regions may impose processing bottlenecks, contributing to capacity and speed limits in MOT.
- Findings challenge existing explanations of hemispatial neglect and advance understanding of spatial attention and mental effort management.
