Trials during which EOG indicated a shift in eye position or an eye blink in the interval between cue onset and 1 second after target presentation, as revealed by an activity greater than 70 μV, were discarded from further analysis. An additional criterion to detect eye movements and blinks was activity greater than 1 pT in frontolateral MEG channels. For each subject, single trials of evoked responses were averaged according to whether the target appeared to the left or to the right side of the fixation cross and whether a cue appeared before or not (cue left, cue right, noncued left, noncued right). In addition, for each of the four conditions, the evoked magnetic fields were averaged across all subjects and trials (grand average). Data were filtered with a digital band pass with cutoff frequencies of 2 and 10 Hz. Filtering this specified frequency range allowed for the optimal recording of the observed magnetic activity.
To quantify magnetic activity, the global field activity, defined as the root mean square of the magnetic amplitudes across channels
\[G_{h}(t)\ {=}\ \sqrt{{\Sigma}b_{ih}^{2}(t)/n_{h}}\]
for each point in time
t and each hemisphere
h was calculated.
b ih (
t) denotes the magnetic activity at channel
i of
n h channels at time
t at either the left (
h =
l) or right (
h =
r) hemisphere. To characterize the time course of activity before target presentation, the average activity was calculated within seven time windows of 500 ms each, overlapping by 50%. Statistical comparisons between the cued and the noncued condition were done by analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with repeated measurement factors for
hemisphere (levels: activity on left and right hemisphere),
side (levels: stimulation in left and right visual field), and
condition (levels: cued and noncued).
In a subsequent analysis, difference waves between the cued and noncued conditions were computed on the basis of the grand average, to detect physiological correlates of attentional shifts. Difference waves revealed a marked attention-related component (ARC) peaking in the latency range between 280 and 360 ms after target onset. To quantify the contribution of this component to the evoked responses of individual subjects and conditions, subspace projection, a type of linear regression analysis, was used.
23 24 We assumed that the contribution of the attention-related component C = (c
i ) varies over time according to the function
a(
t), with
c i being the magnetic amplitude at channel
i, to the evoked magnetic field
B(
t) =
bi(
t) at channel
i and instant
t. Based on the linear superposition of magnetic fields, the measured magnetic field can then be written as
B(
t) =
a(
t) ·
C +
R(
t).
R(
t) represents additional activity not related to the attention-related component. Using regression analysis the contribution
a(
t) of the ARC to the total magnetic field was calculated for any time point.
23 In the present experiment, different topographies of the attention-related component were chosen for left and right presentation of the stimuli. In both conditions, the topography of the ARC was derived from the difference waves of the grand averages at a latency of 315 ms after target onset. Note that in contrast to the earlier procedure designed to detect waveform differences between the four conditions on the basis of the grand averages, here the contribution of the topography of the ARC to the evoked magnetic fields of the
individual subjects was calculated using regression analysis. Consequently, an activation function of the ARC component was obtained. Interestingly, the peak of the activation function was found at 315 ms for left and right visual field stimulation. To obtain a parameter for statistical analysis, we selected the activity at 315 ms. The shift in latency is possibly a result of the temporal overlapping of multiple components involved in processing the target stimuli.
Figure 2presents the different steps of the analysis in more detail. Applying the subspace approach to the evoked responses of individual subjects and conditions, four waveforms were obtained for each subject and one for each condition. To quantify the contribution of the ARC, the maximum activity and its corresponding latency were determined. Statistical comparison between the four conditions (cued left, cued right, noncued left, noncued right) was performed by using ANOVA with the repeated measurement factors
side and
condition. Finally, the localization of the component visible in the difference wave was estimated with an equivalent dipole model.
15 16