Neural Correlates of Visuospatial Attention to Unseen Stimuli in Hemianopic Patients. A Steady-State Visual Evoked Potential Study

Growing evidence for separate neural mechanisms for attention and consciousness

Our conscious experience of the world seems to go in lockstep with our attentional focus: We tend to see, hear, taste, and feel what we attend to, and vice versa. This tight coupling between attention and consciousness has given rise to the idea that these two phenomena are indivisible. In the late 1950s, the honoree of this special issue, Charles Eriksen, was among a small group of early pioneers that sought to investigate whether a transient increase in overall level of attention (alertness) in response to a noxious stimulus can be decoupled from conscious perception using experimental techniques. Recent years saw a similar debate regarding whether attention and consciousness are two dissociable processes. Initial evidence that attention and consciousness are two separate processes primarily rested on behavioral data. However, the past couple of years witnessed an explosion of studies aimed at testing this conjecture using neuroscientific techniques. Here we provide an overview of these and related empirical studies on the distinction between the neuronal correlates of attention and consciousness, and detail how advancements in theory and technology can bring about a more detailed understanding of the two. We argue that the most promising approach will combine ever-evolving neurophysiological and interventionist tools with quantitative, empirically testable theories of consciousness that are grounded in a mathematically formalized understanding of phenomenology.

Visuo-spatial attention to the blind hemifield of hemianopic patients: Can it survive the impairment of visual awareness?

The general aim of this study was to assess the effect produced by visuo-spatial attention on both behavioural performance and brain activation in hemianopic patients following visual stimulus presentation to the blind hemifield. To do that, we tested five hemianopic patients and six age-matched healthy controls in an MRI scanner during the execution of a Posner-like paradigm using a predictive central cue. Participants were instructed to covertly orient attention toward the blind or sighted hemifield in different blocks while discriminating the orientation of a visual grating. In patients, we found significantly faster reaction times (RT) in valid and neutral than invalid trials not only in the sighted but also in the blind hemifield, despite the impairment of consciousness and performance at chance. As to the fMRI signal, in valid trials we observed the activation of ipsilesional visual areas (mainly lingual gyrus - area 19) during the orientation of attention toward the blind hemifield. Importantly, this activation was similar in patients and controls. In order to assess the related functional network, we performed a psychophysiological interactions (PPI) analysis that revealed an increased functional connectivity (FC) in patients with respect to controls between the ipsilesional lingual gyrus and ipsilateral fronto-parietal as well as contralesional parietal regions. Moreover, the shift of attention from the blind to the sighted hemifield revealed stronger FC between the contralesional visual areas V3/V4 and ipsilateral parietal regions in patients than controls. These results indicate a higher cognitive effort in patients when paying attention to the blind hemifiled or when shifting attention from the blind to the sighted hemfield, possibly as an attempt to compensate for the visual loss. Taken together, these results show that hemianopic patients can covertly orient attention toward the blind hemifield with a top-down mechanism by activating a functional network mainly including fronto-parietal regions belonging to the dorsal attentional network.

Neural bases of visual processing of moving and stationary stimuli presented to the blind hemifield of hemianopic patients

Unilateral damage to post-chiasmatic visual pathways or cortical areas results in the loss of vision in the contralateral hemifield, known as hemianopia. Some patients, however, may retain the ability to perform an above chance unconscious detection or discrimination of visual stimuli presented to the blind hemifield, known as "blindsight". An important finding in blindsight research is that it can often be elicited by moving stimuli. Therefore, in the present study, we wanted to test whether moving stimuli might yield blindsight phenomena in patients with cortical lesions resulting in hemianopia, in a discrimination task where stimulus movement is orthogonal to the feature of interest. This could represent an important strategy for rehabilitation because it might improve discrimination ability of stimulus features different but related to movement, e.g. line orientation. We tested eight hemianopic patients and eight age-matched healthy controls in an orientation discrimination task with moving or static visual stimuli. During performance of the task we carried out fMRI scanning and tractography. Behaviourally, we did not find a reliable main effect of motion on orientation discrimination; however, an important result was that in different patients blindsight could occur only with moving or stationary stimuli or with both. As to brain imaging results, following presentation of moving stimuli to the blind hemifield, a widespread fronto-parietal bilateral network was recruited including areas of the dorsal stream and in particular bilateral motion area hMT + whose activation positively correlated with behavioural performance. This bilateral network was not activated in controls suggesting that it represents a compensatory functional change following brain damage. Moreover, there was a higher activation of ipsilesional area hMT+ in patients who performed above chance in the moving condition. By contrast, in patients who performed above chance in the static condition, we found a higher activation of contralesional area V1 and extrastriate visual areas. Finally, we found a linear relationship between structural integrity of the ipsilesional pathway connecting lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) with motion area hMT+ and both behavioural performance and ipsilesional hMT + activation. These results support the role of LGN in modulating performance as well as BOLD amplitude in the absence of visual awareness in ipsilesional area hMT+ during an orientation discrimination task with moving stimuli.

Visual processing speed in hemianopia patients secondary to acquired brain injury: a new assessment methodology

Background

There is a clinical need to identify diagnostic parameters that objectively quantify and monitor the effective visual ability of patients with homonymous visual field defects (HVFDs). Visual processing speed (VPS) is an objective measure of visual ability. It is the reaction time (RT) needed to correctly search and/or reach for a visual stimulus. VPS depends on six main brain processing systems: auditory-cognitive, attentional, working memory, visuocognitive, visuomotor, and executive. We designed a new assessment methodology capable of activating these six systems and measuring RTs to determine the VPS of patients with HVFDs.

Methods

New software was designed for assessing subject visual stimulus search and reach times (S-RT and R-RT respectively), measured in seconds. Thirty-two different everyday visual stimuli were divided in four complexity groups that were presented along 8 radial visual field positions at three different eccentricities (10^o, 20^o, and 30^o). Thus, for each HVFD and control subject, 96 S- and R-RT measures related to VPS were registered. Three additional variables were measured to gather objective data on the validity of the test: eye-hand coordination mistakes (ehcM), eye-hand coordination accuracy (ehcA), and degrees of head movement (dHM, measured by a head-tracker system). HVFD patients and healthy controls (30 each) matched by age and gender were included. Each subject was assessed in a single visit. VPS measurements for HFVD patients and control subjects were compared for the complete test, for each stimulus complexity group, and for each eccentricity.

Results

VPS was significantly slower (p < 0.0001) in the HVFD group for the complete test, each stimulus complexity group, and each eccentricity. For the complete test, the VPS of the HVFD patients was 73.0% slower than controls. They also had 335.6% more ehcMs, 41.3% worse ehcA, and 189.0% more dHMs than the controls.

Conclusions

Measurement of VPS by this new assessment methodology could be an effective tool for objectively quantifying the visual ability of HVFD patients. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of this novel method for measuring the impact that any specific neurovisual rehabilitation program has for these patients.