Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Sustained division of the attentional spotlight

Nature volume 424, pages 309–312 (2003)Cite this article

A Corrigendum to this article was published on 04 December 2003

Abstract

By voluntarily directing attention to a specific region of a visual scene, we can improve our perception of stimuli at that location1. This ability to focus attention upon specific zones of the visual field has been described metaphorically as a moveable spotlight or zoom lens that facilitates the processing of stimuli within its ‘beam’2,3. A long-standing controversy has centred on the question of whether the spotlight of spatial attention has a unitary beam or whether it can be divided flexibly to disparate locations2,4,5,6. Evidence supporting the unitary spotlight view has come from numerous behavioural3,7,8,9,10 and electrophysiological11,12 studies. Recent experiments, however, indicate that the spotlight of spatial attention may be divided between non-contiguous zones of the visual field for very brief stimulus exposures (<100 ms)13,14. Here we use an electrophysiological measure of attentional allocation (the steady-state visual evoked potential) to show that the spotlight may be divided between spatially separated locations (excluding interposed locations) over more extended time periods. This spotlight division appears to be accomplished at an early stage of visual-cortical processing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of stimulus sequences, electrode positions and typical SSVEPs for attended (dashed lines) and unattended (solid line) conditions.
Figure 2: Mean SSVEP amplitudes at each position under the four experimental conditions and normalized amplitudes averaged across the 8.7 Hz and 20.3 Hz SSVEPs.
Figure 3: Spline-interpolated isocontour maps of the grand average attend minus unattend amplitude under conditions of attending to separated locations.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. LaBerge, D. Attentional Processing (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Posner, I. P. & Petersen, S. E. The attention system of the human brain. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 13, 25–42 (1990)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Eriksen, C. W. & Yeh, Y. Y. Allocation of attention in the visual field. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 11, 583–597 (1985)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. LaBerge, D. & Brown, V. Theory of attentional operations in shape identification. Psychol. Rev. 96, 101–124 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Shaw, M. L. & Shaw, P. Optimal allocation of cognitive resources to spatial locations. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 3, 201–211 (1977)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Castiello, U. & Umilta, C. Splitting focal attention. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 18, 837–848 (1992)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R. R. & Davidson, B. J. Attention and detection of signals. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 109, 160–174 (1980)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Pan, K. & Eriksen, C. W. Attentional distribution in the visual field during same-different judgements as assessed by response competition. Percept. Psychophys. 53, 134–144 (1993)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. McCormick, P. A., Klein, R. M. & Johnston, S. Splitting vs. shared visual attention: An empirical commentary on Castiello & Umilta (1992). J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 24, 350–357 (1998)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kiefer, R. J. & Siple, P. Spatial constraints on the voluntary control of attention across visual space. Can. J. Psychol. 41, 474–489 (1987)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Eimer, M. Attending to quadrants and ring-shaped regions: ERP effects of visual attention in different spatial selection tasks. Psychophysiology 36, 491–503 (1999)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Heinze, H.-J. et al. Attention to adjacent and separate positions in space: An electrophysiological analysis. Percept. Psychophys. 56, 42–52 (1994)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Awh, E. & Pashler, H. Evidence for split attentional foci. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 26, 834–846 (2000)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hahn, S. & Kramer, A. F. Further evidence for the division of attention between noncontiguous locations. Vis. Cognit. 5, 217–256 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Regan, D. Human Brain Electrophysiology: Evoked Potentials and Evoked Magnetic Fields in Science and Medicine (Elsevier, New York, 1989)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Müller, M. M. et al. Effects of spatial selective attention on the steady-state visual evoked potential in the 20–28 Hz range. Cognit. Brain Res. 6, 249–261 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Di Russo, F. & Spinelli, D. Spatial attention has different effects on the magno- and parvocellular pathways. NeuroReport 10, 2755–2762 (1999)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Müller, M. M., Teder-Sälejärvi, W. & Hillyard, S. A. The time course of cortical facilitation during cued shifts of spatial attention. Nature Neurosci. 1, 631–634 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Müller, M. M. et al. in Oscillatory Event-related Brain Dynamics (eds Pantev, C., Elbert, T. & Lütkenhöner, B.) 325–342 (Plenum, New York, 1994)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Reeves, A. & Sperling, G. Attention gating in short-term visual memory. Psychol. Rev. 93, 180–206 (1986)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Weichselgartner, E. & Sperling, G. Dynamics of automatic controlled visual attention. Science 238, 778–780 (1987)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Duncan, J., Ward, R. & Shapiro, K. Direct measurement of attentional dwell time in human vision. Nature 369, 313–315 (1994)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Peterson, M. S. & Juola, J. F. Evidence for distinct attentional bottlenecks in attention switching and attentional blink tasks. J. Gen. Psychol. 127, 6–26 (2000)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Moore, C. M., Egeth, H., Berglan, L. & Luck, S. J. Are attentional dwell times inconsistent with serial visual search? Psychonom. Bull. Rev. 3, 360–365 (1996)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Müller, M. M. & Hübner, R. Can the attentional spotlight be shaped like a doughnut? Evidence from steady state visual evoked potentials. Psychol. Sci. 13, 119–124 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Müller, M. M., Teder, W. & Hillyard, S. A. Magentoencephalographic recording of steady-state visual evoked cortical activity. Brain Topogr. 9, 163–168 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hillyard, S. A. et al. Combining steady-state visual evoked potentials and fMRI to localize brain activity during selective attention. Hum. Brain Mapp. 5, 287–292 (1997)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Clark, V. P. & Hillyard, S. A. Spatial selective attention affects early extrastriate but not striate components of the visual evoked potential. J. Cognit. Neurosci. 8, 387–402 (1996)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Martinez, A. et al. Putting spatial attention on the map: Timing and localization of stimulus selection processes in striate and extrastriate visual areas. Vis. Res. 41, 1437–1457 (2001)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Clark, V. P., Fan, S. & Hillyard, S. A. Identification of early visual evoked potential generators by retinotopic and topographic analyses. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2, 170–187 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank N. Williams, H. Messmer and C.-M. Giabbiconi for help in data recording. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and by NIMH.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Allgemeine Psychologie, Universität Leipzig, Seeburgstrasse 14–20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany

    M. M. Müller & T. Gruber

  2. School of Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, 15–21 Webster Street, L3 2ET, Liverpool, UK

    P. Malinowski

  3. Department of Neurosciences, University of California at San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, California, 92093-0608, USA

    S. A. Hillyard

Authors
  1. M. M. Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Malinowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Gruber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. A. Hillyard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. M. Müller.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Müller, M., Malinowski, P., Gruber, T. et al. Sustained division of the attentional spotlight. Nature 424, 309–312 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01812

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01812

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing