Dynamic estimation of the attentional field from visual cortical activity

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors conducted an fMRI study to investigate the neural effects of sustaining attention to areas of different sizes. Participants were instructed to attend to alphanumeric characters arranged in a circular array. The size of attention field was manipulated in four levels, ranging from small (18 deg) to large (162 deg). They used a model-based method to visualize attentional modulation in early visual cortex V1 to V3, and found spatially congruent modulations of the BOLD response, i.e., as the attended area increased in size, the neural modulation also increased in size in the visual cortex. They suggest that this result is a neural manifestation of the zoom-lens model of attention and that the model-based method can effectively reconstruct the neural modulation in the cortical space.

The study is well-designed with sophisticated and comprehensive data analysis. The results are robust and show strong support for a well-known model of spatial attention, the zoom-lens model. Overall, I find the results interesting and useful for the field of visual attention research. I have questions about some aspects of the results and analysis as well as the bigger picture.

(1) It appears that the modulation in V1 is weaker than V2 and V3 (Fig 2). In particular, the width modulation in V1 is not statistically significant (Fig 5). This result seems a bit unexpected. Given the known RF properties of neurons in these areas, in particular, smaller RF in V1, one might expect more spatially sensitive modulation in V1 than V2/V3. Some explanations and discussions would be helpful. Relatedly, one would also naturally wonder if this method can be applied to other extrastriate visual areas such as V4 and what the results look like.

(2) I'm a bit confused about the angular error result. Fig 4 shows that the mean angular error is close to zero, but Fig 5 reports these values to be about 30-40 deg. Why the big discrepancy? Is it due to the latter reporting absolute errors? It seems reporting the overall bias is more useful than absolute value.

(3) A significant effect is reported for amplitude in V3 (line 78), but the graph in Fig 5 shows hardly any difference. Please confirm the finding and also explain the directionality of the effect if there is indeed one.

(4) The purpose of the temporal interval analysis is rather unclear. I assume it has to do with how much data is needed to recover the cortical modulation and hence how dynamic a signal the method can capture. While the results make sense (i.e., more data is better), there is no obvious conclusion and/or interpretation of its meaning.

(5) I think it would be useful for the authors to make a more explicit connection to previous studies in this literature. In particular, two studies seem particularly relevant. First, how do the present results relate to those in Muller et al (2003, reference 37), which also found a zoom-lens type of neural effects. Second, how does the present method compare with spatial encoding model in Sprague & Serences (2013, reference 56), which also reconstructs the neural modulation of spatial attention. More discussions of these studies will help put the current study in the larger context.

(6) Fig 4b, referenced on line 123, does not exist.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The study in question utilizes functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to dynamically estimate the locus and extent of covert spatial attention from visuocortical activity. The authors aim to address an important gap in our understanding of how the size of the attentional field is represented within the visual cortex. They present a novel paradigm that allows for the estimation of the spatial tuning of the attentional field and demonstrate the ability to reliably recover both the location and width of the attentional field based on BOLD responses.

Strengths:

(1) Innovative Paradigm: The development of a new approach to estimate the spatial tuning of the attentional field is a significant strength of this study. It provides a fresh perspective on how spatial attention modulates visual perception.
(2) Refined fMRI Analysis: The use of fMRI to track the spatial tuning of the attentional field across different visual regions is methodologically rigorous and provides valuable insights into the neural mechanisms underlying attentional modulation.
(3) Clear Presentation: The manuscript is well-organized, and the results are presented clearly, which aids in the reader's comprehension of the complex data and analyses involved.

Weaknesses:

(1) Lack of Neutral Cue Condition: The study does not include a neutral cue condition where the cue width spans 360{degree sign}, which could serve as a valuable baseline for assessing the BOLD response enhancements and diminishments in both attended and non-attended areas.
(2) Clarity on Task Difficulty Ratios: The explicit reasoning for the chosen letter-to-number ratios for various cue widths is not detailed. Ensuring clarity on these ratios is crucial, as it affects the task difficulty and the comparability of behavioral performance across different cue widths. It is essential that observed differences in behavior and BOLD signals are attributable solely to changes in cue width and not confounded by variations in task difficulty.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this report, the authors tested how manipulating the contiguous set of stimuli on the screen that should be used to guide behavior - that is, the scope of visual spatial attention - impacts the magnitude and profile of well-established attentional enhancements in visual retinotopic cortex. During fMRI scanning, participants attended to a cued section of the screen for blocks of trials and performed a letter vs digit discrimination task at each attended location (and judged whether the majority of characters were letters/digits). Importantly, the visual stimulus was identical across attention conditions, so any observed response modulations are due to top-down task demands rather than visual input. The authors employ population receptive field (pRF) models, which are used to sort voxel activation with respect to the location and scope of spatial attention and fit a Gaussian-like function to the profile of attentional enhancement from each region and condition. The authors find that attending to a broader region of space expands the profile of attentional enhancement across the cortex (with a larger effect in higher visual areas), but does not strongly impact the magnitude of this enhancement, such that each attended stimulus is enhanced to a similar degree. Interestingly, these modulations, overall, mimic changes in response properties caused by changes to the stimulus itself (increase in contrast matching the attended location in the primary experiment). The finding that attentional enhancement primarily broadens, but does not substantially weaken in most regions, is an important addition to our understanding of the impact of distributed attention on neural responses, and will provide meaningful constraints to neural models of attentional enhancement.

Strengths:

- Well-designed manipulations (changing location and scope of spatial attention), and careful retinotopic/pRF mapping, allow for a robust assay of the spatial profile of attentional enhancement, which has not been carefully measured in previous studies
- Results are overall clear, especially concerning width of the spatial region of attentional enhancement, and lack of clear and consistent evidence for reduction in the amplitude of enhancement profile
- Model-fitting to characterize spatial scope of enhancement improves interpretability of findings

Weaknesses:

- Task difficulty seems to vary as a function of spatial scope of attention, with varying ratios of letters/digits across spatial scope conditions, which may complicate interpretations of neural modulation results
- Some aspects of analysis/data sorting are unclear (e.g., how are voxels selected for analyses?)
- While the focus of this report is on modulations of visual cortex responses due to attention, the lack of inclusion of results from other retinotopic areas (e.g. V3AB, hV4, IPS regions like IPS0/1) is a weakness
- Additional analyses comparing model fits across amounts of data analyzed suggest the model fitting procedure is biased, with some parameters (e.g., FWHM, error, gain) scaling with noise.

Author response:

We thank the three reviewers for their insightful feedback. We look forward to addressing the raised concerns in a revised version of the manuscript. There were a few common themes among the reviews that we will briefly touch upon now, and we will provide more details in the revised manuscript.

First, the reviewers asked for the reasoning behind the task ratios we implemented for the different attentional width conditions. The different ratios were selected to be as similar as possible given the size and spacing of our stimuli (aside from the narrowest cue width of one bin, the ratios for the others were 0.67, 0.60, and 0.67). As Figure 1b shows, task accuracy showed small and non-monotonic changes across the three larger cue widths, dissociable from the monotonic pattern seen for the model-estimated width of the attentional field. Furthermore, prior work has indicated that there is a relationship between task difficulty and the overall magnitude of the BOLD response, however we don’t suspect that this will influence the width of the modulation. How task difficulty influences the BOLD response is an important topic, and we hope that future work will investigate this relationship more directly.

Second, reviewers expressed interest in the distribution of spatial attention in higher visual areas. In our study we focus only on early visual regions (V1-V3). This was primarily driven by pragmatic considerations, in that we only have retinotopic estimates for our participants in these early visual areas. Our modeling approach is dependent on having access to the population receptive field estimates for all voxels, and while the main experiment was scanned using whole brain coverage, retinotopy was measured in a separate session using a field of view only covering the occipital cortex.

Lastly, we appreciate the opportunity to clarify the purpose of the temporal interval analysis. The reviewer is correct in assuming we set out to test how much data is needed to recover the cortical modulation and how dynamic a signal the method can capture. This analysis does show that more data provided more reliable estimates. The more important finding, however, is that the model was still able to recover the location and width of the attentional cue at shorter timescales of as few as two TRs. This has implications for the potential applicability of our approach to paradigms that involve more dynamic adaptation of the attentional field.