This should be reflected in an increase in MK-1775 order the number of peaks in the alpha topography from the undivided condition to the divided condition. For the blinking spotlight model

of attention (VanRullen et al., 2007), we derived three possible predictions for suppression of the to-be-ignored stimuli. In this theory, the attentional spotlight is thought to constantly move between all available stimuli. Therefore, the first prediction is that all unattended stimuli will be suppressed individually. That is, we assume that a similar mechanism exists for both suppression and excitation. For the current experimental paradigm, such a mechanism would result in two peaks of suppression for both the divided attention condition and the undivided attention condition. The second prediction is that there will be no suppression of to-be-ignored stimuli, as the blinking spotlight of attention might only selectively enhance target locations. This should obviously result in alpha topographies that do not possess www.selleckchem.com/products/abt-199.html distinctive occipito-parietal peaks. The third prediction is that, while the attentional focus switches rhythmically between all possible target locations, suppression will be allocated to distracter

locations in a static fashion. This would result in the same topographic distribution and increase in the number Silibinin of peaks in the divided attention condition as for the divided spotlight account, and indicate a static split of suppression. Participants were successful at performing the difficult attentional tasks.

With chance level at 33.3%, the mean percentages of correct responses were approximately 50% for the attentional task conditions involving the outer right stimulus, and approximately 45% for those involving the left outer stimulus (Fig. 3). These performance values are somewhat lower than in other studies of attention, but the experimental task was more difficult, owing to the randomly flickering stimuli that were necessary to estimate the brain’s impulse response to all four stimuli. For the C1 time-frame, the repeated measures anova revealed no significant main effects (F1,54 = 0.2; P = 0.657). Only for the inner left stimulus was there significant modulation of activity with attention (F1,13 = 4.78; P = 0.048). This indicates that there was no influence of attention on cortical processing in this very early time-frame, or that the locations of the four different stimuli were not optimal for obtaining C1 responses.