Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T03:27:47.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Usability of a theory of visual attention (TVA) for parameter-based measurement of attention I: Evidence from normal subjects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2005

KATHRIN FINKE ,
PETER BUBLAK ,
JOSEPH KRUMMENACHER ,
SØREN KYLLINGSBÆK ,
HERMANN J. MÜLLER  and
WERNER X. SCHNEIDER
KATHRIN FINKE
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
PETER BUBLAK
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
JOSEPH KRUMMENACHER
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
SØREN KYLLINGSBÆK
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Center for Visual Cognition, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
HERMANN J. MÜLLER
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
WERNER X. SCHNEIDER
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study investigated the usability of whole and partial report of briefly displayed letter arrays as a diagnostic tool for the assessment of attentional functions. The tool is based on Bundesen's (1990, 1998, 2002; Bundesen et al., 2005) theory of visual attention (TVA), which assumes four separable attentional components: processing speed, working memory storage capacity, spatial distribution of attention, and top-down control. A number of studies (Duncan et al., 1999; Habekost & Bundesen, 2003; Peers et al., 2005) have already demonstrated the clinical relevance of these parameters. The present study was designed to examine whether (a) a shortened procedure bears sufficient accuracy and reliability, (b) whether the procedures reveal attentional constructs with clinical relevance, and (c) whether the mathematically independent parameters are also empirically independent. In a sample of 35 young healthy subjects, we found high intraparameter correlations between full- and short-length tests and sufficient internal consistencies as measured via a bootstrapping method. The clinical relevance of the TVA parameters was demonstrated by significant correlations with established clinical tests measuring similar constructs. The empirical independence of the four TVA parameters is suggested by nonsignificant or, in the case of processing speed and working memory storage capacity, only modest correlations between the parameter values. (JINS, 2005, 11, 832–842.)

Keywords

HumanAdultNeuropsychological testsExperimental designReliability of resultsCognition
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 11 , Issue 7 , November 2005 , pp. 832 - 842
Copyright
© 2005 The International Neuropsychological Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bäumler, G. (1985). Farbe-Wort-Interferenztest (FWIT) nach J. R. Stroop. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Bublak, P., Finke, K., Krummenacher, J., Preger, R., Kyllingsbæk, S., Müller, H.J., & Schneider, W.X. (2005). Usability of a theory of visual attention II: Evidence from two patients with frontal or parietal damage. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 11, 000–000. (this issue)Google Scholar
Bundesen, C. (1990). A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review, 97, 523–547.Google Scholar
Bundesen, C. (1998). A computational theory of visual attention. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society London B, 353, 1271–1281.Google Scholar
Bundesen, C. (2002). A general theory of visual attention. In L. Bäckman & C. von Hofsten (Eds.), Psychology at the turn of the millennium. Cognitive, biological, and health perspectives (Vol. 1, pp. 179–200). Hove: Psychology Press.
Bundesen, C., Habekost, T., & Kyllingsbæk, S. (2005). A neural theory of visual attention: bridging cognition and neurophysiology. Psychological Review, 112, 291–328.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 1–68.Google Scholar
Cowan, N., Wood, N.L., Wood, P.K., Keller, T.A., Nugent, N.D., & Keller, C.V. (1998). Two separate verbal processing rates contributing to short-term memory span. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 141–160.Google Scholar
Desimone, R. & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 18, 193–222.Google Scholar
Duncan, J., Bundesen, C., Olson, A., Humphreys, G., Chavda, S., & Shibuya, H. (1999). Systematic analysis of deficits in visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 450–478.Google Scholar
Duncan, J. & Owen, M.A. (2000). Common regions of the human frontal lobe recruited by diverse cognitive damands. Trends in Neurosciences, 23, 475–483.Google Scholar
Duncan, J., Bundesen, C., Olson, A., Humphreys, G., Ward, R., Kyllingsbæk, S., Raamsdonk, V.M., Rorden, C., & Chavda, S. (2003). Attentional functions in dorsal and ventral simultanagnosia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 675–701.Google Scholar
Efron, B. & Tibshirani, R.J. (1998). An introduction to the bootstrap. London: Chapman & Hall.
Fan, J., McCandliss, B.D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M.I. (2002). Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 340–347.Google Scholar
Habekost, T. & Bundesen, C. (2003). Patient assessment based on a theory of visual attention (TVA): Subtle deficits after a right frontal-subcortical lesion, Neuropsychologia, 41, 1171–1188.Google Scholar
Härting, C., Markowitsch, H.J., Neufeld, H., Calabrese, P., Deisinger, K., & Kessler, J. (2000). WMS-R Wechsler Gedächtnistest—Revidierte Fassung. Bern: Hans Huber.
Jewell, G. & McCourt, M.E. (2000). Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38, 93–110.Google Scholar
Kyllingsbæk, S. (in press). Modeling visual attention. Behavior Research Methods.
Lehrl, S., Triebig, G., & Fischer, B. (1995). Multiple choice vocabulary test MWT as a valid and short test to estimate premorbid intelligence. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 91, 335–345.Google Scholar
Peers, P.V., Ludwig, C.J.H., Rorden, C., Cusack, R., Bonfiglioli, C., Bundesen, C., Driver, J., Antoun, N., & Duncan, J. (2005). Attentional functions of parietal and frontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1469–1484.Google Scholar
Posner, M.I. & Petersen, S.E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25–42.Google Scholar
Ross, S.M. (2000). Introduction to probability and statistics for engineers and scientists. San Diego: Academic Press.
Schneider, W.X. (1999). Visual-spatial working memory, attention, and scene representation: A neuro-cognitive theory. Psychological Research, 62, 220–236.Google Scholar
Sperling, G. (1960). The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs, 74, 11.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, P. & Fimm, B. (1993). Test for Attentional Performance (TAP). Herzogenrath: Psytest.