SaxManSteve Honous Thesis

Reductionism and Complexity Within Attentional Processes
Abstract
To what degree is it justifiable to use reductionist methodologies to causally infer the biological
mechanisms responsible for attentional processes? An important indicator of a successful experimental
reduction is a decrease or elimination of variability, compared to more holistic levels. For example,
Kogan, Frankland, & Silva (2000) were able to eliminate the variability associated with social
recognition memory at the behavioural level using a knock-out mice study. By knocking out a specific
transcriptional factor they demonstrated that the knock-out mice were unable to recognize juvenile
mice after a 24 hour delay period. Results such as this demonstrate that an effective and productive way
to understand complex systems is to understand the system’s component parts. However, some
complex systems demonstrate non-linear/chaotic patterns, showing relatively constant variability
between the component parts and the outward system behaviour. It is theorized that some of these
systems are immune to the methodologies of reductionism because causal influence within the system's
component parts behave bidirectionally, e.i., each level of reduction causally influences each other
from more holistic levels to more reductive ones and vice versa. To investigate whether attention is
best modelled using a linear or non-linear system, we analyzed over 60 academic papers encompassing
five levels of reduction on the topic of visual attention. More specifically, we computed each paper's
overall coefficient of variation to determine whether measures of variability remained constant or
whether they decreased as a function of reduction. Our results demonstrated a significant linear
decrease in variability from the brain region level to the genetic level and a significant linear increase
from psychological level to brain region level. However, the most holistic level (psychology) and the
most reductionist level (genetics) showed similar variability. These results could serve as a preliminary
model to differentiate between non-linear and reductionist components of visual attention.
Keywords: Reductionism, attention, variability, complex systems, linear systems
1
Table of Contents
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………………..3
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………3
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..4
1.1 History and Theories on Reductionism………………………………………………………4
Chapter 2: Conceptual Background for Experiment and Methodology………………………………….9
2.1 Empirical Investigation and Meta-Analysis………………………………………..………...9
2.2 Methodology for Reduction Level Classification Survey.....……………………………….10
2.3 Paper Selection Process for Meta-Analysis………………………………………………....11
2.4 Sample Paper from each Reduction Level.......................…………………………………..12
Chapter 3: Results………………………………………………………………………………….…...15
3.1 Reduction Level Classification Results…………………………………………………….15
3.2 Meta-Analysis Results……………………………………………………………………...16
Chapter 4: Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………..19
4.1 Proposed Models of Reduction……………………………………………………………..19
4.2 Meta-Analysis Limitations………………………………………………………………….20
4.3 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….…22
References………………………………………………………………………………………………23
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………………...25
A. Raw Meta-Analysis Data……………………………………………………………………25
B. Reduction Level Classification Survey Questions. …………………………………………60
C. Informed consent form………………………………………………………………………70
2
List of Tables
Table 1. Number of Participants by Faculty in the Online Survey……………………………………..15
Table 2. Most frequently cited papers by academic journal…………………………………………….16
List of Figures
Figure 1. Average coefficient of variation for each level of reduction…………………………………18
3
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 History and Theories of Reductionism
The origins of modern scientific reductionism can perhaps be traced back to Rene Descartes’
“mechanical” philosophy. At the heart of this new philosophy was the idea that the natural world can be
explained by reducing it to its component parts, where the whole system can be explained by the sum
of its parts. Descartes applied his reductionist principles to everything from planetary motion to human
and animal physiology, with the goal of having a better understanding of complex systems (Hutchins,
2015). However, Descartes found himself in a dilemma when he attempted to apply his reductionist
philosophy to higher mental faculties such as language or consciousness. His inability to reduce these
higher brain functions to smaller components led him to suggest that human mental phenomena were
made of a different substance that followed unique metaphysical laws (Lowney, 2011). Descartes made
the differentiation between two metaphysical substances: immaterial substances (res cogitans) and
material substances (res extensa) (Descartes, 1647).
According to philosopher Micheal Polanyi (1968) Descartes’ substance dualism “arises from
the disparity between the experience of a person observing an external object, e.g., a cat, and a
neurophysiologist observing the bodily mechanism by use of which the person sees the cat.” The
epistemological differences between the outside and inside-knowledge of a cognitive phenomenon are
therefore the contrast which initiated Descartes to create two types of metaphysical substances
(Lowney, 2011). In the 21st century, researchers can use a wide array of methodologies that have begun
to challenge Descartes’ substance dualism. With the advent of neuroimaging technologies and the vast
array of genetic methodologies, scientists are able to more accurately peer into aspects of human
machinery. These methodologies have enabled researchers to identify, in a reductive manner, the causes
of a variety of holistic human phenomenon. For example, Huntington’s disease, characterized by
changes in mood, changes in mental abilities, lack of coordination and dementia has been reduced to a
4
single mutant gene named the mutant Huntingtin protein (Dayalu & Albin, 2015). In others words,
genetic methodologies have been successful in reducing a complex psychological phenomenon to a
single gene. Despite these tools and the advanced genetic methodologies, scientists are not able to
predict human behaviour in the same way that they can predict how a pocket watch moves its minute
hand. On one hand, this could suggest that it is not possible to causally explain human behaviour
through a reductionist framework. On the other hand, it could be the case that it is possible but that we
are simply lacking in scientific progress.
Assuming the second case, a logical position would be to continue onwards with scientific
discoveries in the behavioural sciences until behavioural prediction is achieved. The goal would be to
describe human cognition the same way an engineer can causally explain the clock's minute hand
movements by describing the way the gears interact with each other. The engineer along with the
enterprising behavioural scientist would need to understand that each gear/biological component is
linearly separable from the greater system behaviour. In other words, there must be a one to one
correspondence between each component part. In terms of variability between each component part, a
one to one correspondence indicates that the component parts of the system have a 0% variability score
in relation to each other. For example, given a certain force, a given gear in a clock will always rotate
the adjacent gear with a specific degree of rotation, increasing the force will have a directly linear
proportional effect on the degree of rotation. In contrast, complex systems often demonstrate variability
associated with each component part. Often, this variability obscures the parameters in which the
system can claim to be a linearly separable one. This has to do with the nature of variability within data
and the role variability has in relation to the system it inhabits.
The source of variability in data either originates from an environmental effect or a technical
effect (Altman & Krzywinski, 2015). Environmental variability signifies the presence of an unknown
and/or confounding variable that is influencing the phenomenon under consideration. For example, in a
5
large population-based study, researchers examined whether alcohol and smoking were a significant
risk factor for Amyotropic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). In order to reduce the amount of environmental
variability from their study the researchers excluded participants who had family members affected by
ALS (to lessen the potential influence of genetic on their results) (de Jong et al., 2012). On the other
hand, technical variability can signify a problem in the precision of the measurement instruments. For
example, a major limitation in the EEG literature pertains to the inherent “noise” in the data generated
by its poor spatial resolution. Such a limitation is often followed by a discussion on ways to improve
instrument precision or ways to divide the noise into more meaningful units of analysis. These
assumptions rest upon the notion that more reductive methodologies increase experimental precision
which in turn provide a clearer description of the phenomenon at play.
In cognitive neuroscience the reductionist approach is often used to remove the necessity of
more holistic frameworks when examining a specific phenomenon. For example, the cellular
mechanism known as long term potentiation (LTP) is known to be an important mechanisms in learning
and memory. Recently, neuroscientist have attempted to reduce components of memory such as short-
term memory, long term memory and working memory to cellular based mechanisms such as LTP.
Prior to the development of cognitive neuroscience, the traditional models used in memory research
were based on psychological terminology. For example, within Baddeley’s (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974)
working memory model it was common to describe the capacity to remember childhood phone
numbers as a result of chunking strategies coupled with the capacity to transfer and retrieve
information from long-term memory. Broad conceptual models such as Baddeleys’s working memory
model have a high degree of variability as many variables can interact with an individual’s working
memory capacity such as: memory span, general intelligence quotient, personality factors and a wide
variety of environmental and genetic influences. Reducing such capacities to cellular mechanisms
enables researchers to all together eliminate the variability observed at more holistic levels of
6
reduction. One example of such reduction is demonstrated in (Kogan, Franklandand, & Silva, 2000).
Here the authors examined whether transcriptional factors within LTP were causally responsible for
social recognition memory, more specifically they investigated the transcriptional factor cyclic-AMP
response element binding protein (CREB) and its role in transferring social recognition information to
long term memory. By using knock-out mice that lacked the expression of two specific CREB
isoforms, they demonstrated that the knock-out mice were unable to recognize a juvenile mice after a
24 hour delay period. The researchers hypothesized that the failure to encode the memory to the long
term store was reducible to the CREB mechanism as the control mice showed no sign of memory
impairments in the same social recognition task. This reduction allowed the researchers to eliminate
some of the variability observed at the behavioural level. To successfully eliminate all variability the
researchers would have needed to devise other knock out experiments to test if other genes also
affected social recognition memory.
The above reductionist methodologies assume that the phenomenon under investigation follows
principles of linearity in which the component parts are directly responsible for the greater system.
While such an assumption holds true for many natural phenomena, there are also cases where the
principles of linearity breakdown. For example, to understand what causes rain, it is necessary to apply
the reductionist chemical equations that determine how much water a segment of air can contain before
it becomes saturated to the point where its mass gets pulled towards the surface in the form of water
droplets. However, to understand why a cloud did not rain enough to prevent a drought, it is not
possible to divide the cloud into its components parts the same way you would divide a clock in terms
of its component parts. This is because a cloud is part of a complex system in which its end stage is
sensitive to initial conditions (whether that be atmospheric pressure, temperature, or wind). Systems
which are sensitive to initial conditions follow principles of non-linearity. Non-linearity can be present
in systems in which a minuscule change in one component part can create enormous changes to the
7
behaviour of the system as a whole regardless of previous recorded patterns (Werndl, 2009). Such a
system was discovered by the famous mathematician turned meteorologist Edward Lorrenz who
invented the term ‘butterfly effect’. Lorrenz had demonstrated that the flap of a butterfly’s wings in
Northern Vietnam could significantly influence the weather system in Indiana. The consequences of
such a non-linear system reveal that it is impossible to predict future iterations of such a systems state
(Lorenz, 1963). Additionally this suggests that a reductive approach to non-linear systems is not useful.
In terms of non-linear systems, variability measurements have an inherently different meaning.
Instead of portraying a deficit in instrument precision or an unforeseen unaccounted variable,
variability in non-linear systems is thought of as the whole system, in and of itself. This means that at
any level of reduction, variability remains constant (van Emmerik, Ducharme, Amado, & Hamill,
2016). Additionally, through the interactions of a system's component parts, novel properties emerges at
more holistic levels. In non-linear systems, due to the constant variability of each level, the more
holistic levels are neither predictable nor reductively explainable in terms of the properties and
relationships of lower levels of organizations (Kim, 1999). For example, during a snowstorm each
snowflake has a unique geometrical shape independent of the scale at which it is observed. In this
sense, each unique emergent feature of the snowflake’s shape is a result of the variability in its
environment. This suggests that the phenomenon is dependent on variability, and that attempting to
isolate the rules that formed a specific snowflake are doomed to fail at every preceding and following
level of reduction, as the levels of reduction are subject to constant variation.
An initial hypothesis to explain the constant inter-reduction level variability associated with
non-linear systems has to do with the reciprocal causal directionality of a given non-linear
phenomenon. In other words, non-linear systems have demonstrated properties that are causally
bidirectional in respect to reduction levels (Mazzocchi, 2012). For example, the function of chromatin
fibres has been associated with the mitotic stages starting from atomic level DNA to micron size
8
chromosomes. Yet, at each more complex level of organization (starting from 2nm micron level DNA,
10nm DNA fibre, 30nm DNA fibre, 300nm DNA fibre loops, to 2000nm chromosome) chromatic
fibres initiate mechanisms, such as DNA conformation and nucleosome state, that increase the causal
sensitivity of higher level organizations levels to that of lower levels. Alternatively, chromatin fibres
can also incur mechanisms through steric, topological, mechanical and kinetic constraints that increase
the causal sensitivity of lower levels of organization to that of higher levels. Given this causal
bidirectionally of function and the associated constant variation across organization levels, chromatin
fibres have been considered as a non-linear, non reductionist entity influencing the mitotic cell cycle
(Lesne & Victor, 2006).
Chapter 2: Conceptual Background for Experiment and Methodology
2.1 Empirical investigation and meta-analysis
The stated differences in variability among linear and non-linear systems will provide a
conceptual background that will help to identify whether current scientific projects have a linear or
non-linear nature. To reiterate, in linear systems, as one moves from more holistic reduction levels to
more reductive ones variability should be expected to decrease. In non-linear systems it should be
expected that variability remain relatively constant across levels of reduction.
To test such an hypothesis empirically, we have devised an interdisciplinary meta-analysis on a
human phenomenon which is studied across multiple levels of reduction. The chosen human
phenomenon was attentional processes. This topic was chosen because of the author’s familiarity with
the cognitive and neuroscientific aspects of attentional processes (there is no reason why another topic
could not have been chosen). Additionally, a more specific subset of attentional processes, such as
visual or selective attention, was not chosen due to the unavailability of papers in more reductionist
levels that studied subsets of attentional processes. The goal of this study was to analyze a wide variety
of studies across multiple levels of reduction and to observe if levels of variation decrease with more
9
reductive approaches. If indeed the variation decreases as a function of reduction, it would suggest that
reductive tools are more efficient at measuring and isolating a given causal mechanism pertaining to a
given human phenomenon. In contrast, if levels of variation remain relatively constant, it would
suggest that attentional processes are subject to non-linearities signifying that each level of reduction is
independent of one another, in so far as more holistic levels can not be reduced to their component
parts.
The meta-analysis consisted of five levels of reduction that were differentiated by the type of
units measured in the dependent variable. The five levels of reduction are outlined in detail in section
2.4 which includes a description of a sample paper from each level. The overall study consisted of the
interdisciplinary meta-analysis as described in section 2.3 and a reduction level classification survey as
described in section 2.2.
2.2 Methodology for Reduction Level Classification Survey
The dependent variables used to differentiate the levels of reduction were chosen based on a
subjective judgement. Due to the lack of an established metric for classifying levels of reduction, our
classification system had the possibility of lacking validity. To mitigate this problem of classification
validity, a survey was performed on various faculty members in which the faculty members were asked
to classify academic papers by their reduction level. The goal of this survey was to compare the faculty
member’s classification results to the classification results used in the meta-analysis. If a significant
amount of faculty members classified papers in the same level of reduction as was classified in the
study, then this would increase the validity of the given classification metric used for that reduction
level. Conversely, if a significant amount of faculty members classified papers differently compared to
the meta-analysis, then the reduction level in question would lose internal validity.
Ten sample papers were randomly selected from the total pool of analyzed papers (two from
each level of reduction). Faculty members were selected based on the field of research present within
10
the 5 five reduction levels. The following departments were contacted for survey participation:
Philosophy, Psychology, Cognitive Science, Neuroscience, Biology and Biochemistry. The participants
were instructed, through an online survey, to read the title and abstract of ten academic papers (see
Appendix B). They then classified them as belonging to one of the five reduction levels. To avoid
introducing a bias based on the reductive assumption of the term “reduction level”, participants were
asked to pick the “explanation type” which best fit with the description of the paper rather than asking
them to classify them by reduction level. To compare the classification results of the survey to the
classification in the meta-analysis, a binomial test was used with a p = 0.05 in which all answers that
differed from the classification used in the meta-analysis were treated as a false value.
2.3 Paper Selection Process for Meta-Analysis
The selection process for each paper was based on a systematic review of major academic
journals with an impact factor greater than 2.5 spanning all five levels of reduction. This was
performed to exclude poor quality papers and to encourage the selected papers to be representative of
influential research within each level of reduction. Databases were searched with the keyword
'Attention'. Following the database search, individual papers were selected based on two requirements:
(1) They adhered to the classification requirements of a reduction level (as detailed in section 2.2) and
(2) they had data in a format that allowed for a coefficient of variation to be calculated. The coefficient
of variation is defined by the following equation, CV = (SD/√n) / (mean). By dividing the standard
deviation by the square root of the sample size this allows the coefficient of variation to be
standardized across unit type.
In each paper that fulfilled the two above requirements, individual data segments were
transformed into a single coefficient of variation. For example, in a bar chart with 6 bars, each bar
would be transformed into a single coefficient of variation. All data segments were then aggregated into
an average coefficient of variation representing the total expression of variability for that single paper.
11
After all papers in a reduction level were analyzed, a total average coefficient of variation was
calculated to represent the total expression of variability for that reduction level. The average
coefficients of variation representing the five levels of reduction were compared to each other using a
one-way ANOVA using a p value of 0.05.
2.4 Sample Paper from each Reduction Level
(1) Introspection level. This level contains papers pertaining to attentional processes in which
the dependent variable contains descriptive qualitative data. Typical experiments involve the measuring
of attention-dependent thought processes that are only accessible to researchers by method of self-
report or introspection. Due to the difficulties in finding papers that quantified the data in a format
where the coefficient of variation was analyzable, this level has a small sample size. The most
commonly cited papers in this level originate from the Trends in Cognitive Science Journal
Sample paper : For example, Dijksterhuis et al. (2006) observed whether people make more
desirable decisions as a function of how long one devotes attentional capacities to a given problem. In
this paper, the attentional capacities referred to the introspectionist methods of each participant. The
researchers concluded that participants viewed the outcome of a complex decision more favourably
when they had given less attention to the parameters of the problem.
(2) Psychological level. The studies in this reduction level deal with cognitive mechanisms
related to attentional processes. The dependent variable used was reaction time. Typical experiments
involved introducing a task to participants that either interfered or modified with the function of a
dominant cognitive phenomenon used in the attentional literature. Often, the reaction time variable
served as an indicator of the parameter or scope of the specific cognitive mechanism under study. The
reaction time variable also helped to identify whether interference tasks or other confounding variables
affected the cognitive mechanisms under study. The most commonly cited papers in this level were
from the Journal of Experimental psychology.
12
Sample paper: For example, Spataro, Mulligan, & Rossi-Arnaud's (2013) paper examined the
degree to which an increase in attention in one task can enhance the performance in an other task while
both task are performed concurrently. The reaction time in this study helped to exemplify the difference
between how the divided attention group and the full-attention group performed on a recognition test.
By introducing an interference task, the researchers demonstrated that participants were primed faster
in the divided attention group. This enabled the researchers to claim that an attentional boost effect is
created when attention is divided, contrary to the dominant views on fixed capacity during multitasking
tasks.
(3) Brain Region Level. This reduction level incorporated the experimental methodologies of
the psychological level but focused on pinpointing brain activation areas related to attentional
processes. The dependent variable measured in this level was activation level, or the percent of signal
change across time using a variety of imaging technologies such as EEG, FMRI, MRI, ect. Typical
experiments involve the introduction of an attentionally taxing task with varying experimental
conditions. While participants are performing these tasks the researchers monitor brain activity using
imaging technologies and attempt to associate/correlate brain activity with the specific attentional
phenomenon. The most commonly cited papers in this reduction level come from the Journal of
Neurophysiology.
Sample paper: For example Brefczynski & DeYoe's (1999) research paper instructed
participants to direct their visual attention to precise spatial locations on a screen while being
monitored by an MRI machine. The researchers were able to identify significant activity in the primary
visual cortex, the dorsomedial and ventral occipital visual areas which correlated with the shifts in
attention between spatial targets. The researchers inferred from the results a physiological basis for
spatially directed visual attention.
13
(4) Cellular level. The papers in this reduction level involved the measurement of activation
patterns in individual neurons when stimulated by attentional processes. The dependent variable used in
this level was the firing rate of individual action potentials (action potentials/milliseconds). Typical
experiments involve the manipulation of various cues (contrast, depth, colour) in the context of an
attentionally taxing task and measuring activation patterns of individual neurons. The most commonly
cited papers in this reduction level come from the Neuron Journal.
Sample paper: For example in Reynolds, Pasternak, & Desimone's (2000) study, the effect of
increased sensitivity to stimulus during a shift of attention in the visual field was examined at the
neuronal level. The researchers examined whether such increased sensitivity was due to an increase in
the action potentials in the V4 area. The results suggested that visual attention increases the firing rate
of neurons at low luminance contrast more so than at higher contrast. Again, the results claim to help in
having a better reductive understanding of the physiological basis of visual attention.
(5) Genetic level. The collection of studies in this reduction level used an experimental
paradigm similar to the psychological level. They were similar because both levels involved
experiments that introduced an attention-related cognitive task to participants. The main difference was
that the experimental groups in the genetic level papers were selected based on participant’s genes,
whereas the experimental groups in the psychological level were differentiated based on the
interference or modification mechanisms used in the experiment. The overlapping use of reaction time
as the dependent variable in both levels introduced a potential confounding variable in terms of the
validity of the classification metrics used to differentiate levels of reduction. This particular issue is
addressed in section X by analyzing the results of the reduction level classification survey. Despite the
classification metric similarities, this level differs from the others as it is focused on the role DNA
polymorphisms have on attentional processes. The most commonly cited papers in this reduction level
14
come from the Journal of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America
Sample paper: For example Blasi et al's. (2005) research paper examined the role that the
val158met polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene have on attentional
control. By separating participants by the polymorphisms on the COMT gene, the researchers were able
to observe the effect each polymorphism had on dopamine cortical signalling, which in turn was
hypothesized to enhance the performance on attentional tasks involving the cingulate cortex. The
results (quantified by the reaction time variable) showed that participants with the met polymorphism
performed significantly better on attentional control tasks.
Chapter 3: Results
3.1 Reduction Level Classification Survey Results
A total of 27 participants completed the survey from a variety of departments, as demonstrated
in Table 1. Eight of the 27 participant were not able to answer of all 10 questions due to server issues
emanating from the Qualtrics website. The partially completed surveys were still used in the analysis.
Table 1
Number of Participants by Faculty in the Online Survey
Departments Number of Participants
Philosophy 2
Psychology 3
Cognitive Science 12
Neuroscience 7
Biology 3
Total 27
15
The two abstracts from the introspection level received the lowest classification agreement
score, the binomial test indicated that the proportion of participants choosing introspection as the
classification metric was of 0.17, p = 0.00 for the first paper and 0.04, p = 0.00 for the second paper.
The two psychology papers received a high agreement score, the first paper indicated that the
proportion of participants choosing psychology as the classification metric was of 0.87, p = 0.00 for the
first paper and 0.88, p = 0.00 for the second paper. The two brain region level received a high
agreement score, the first paper indicated that the proportion of participants choosing brain region as
the classification metric was of 0.96, p = 0.00 for the first paper and 0.91, p = 0.00 for the second
paper. The two cellular papers did not produce a significant classification agreement score. The first
paper indicated that the proportion of participants choosing cellular as the classification metric was
0.46, p = 0.84. The second paper indicated that the proportion of participants choosing cellular as the
classification metric was 0.65, p = 0.21. The two genetic papers produced a significant classification
agreement score. The first paper indicated that the proportion of participants choosing genetic as the
classification metric was 0.79, p = 0.01. The second paper indicated the proportion of participants
choosing genetic as the classification metric was 0.82, p = 0.01.
Overall, the results of the survey suggests that the classification metrics used for the
introspection level and the cellular level differ significantly from the opinions of expert faculty
members. It is therefore suggested that the meta-analysis results produced by these two levels be
excluded from any significant findings.
3.2 Meta-Analysis Results
Average coefficients of variation were analyzed in a total of 62 papers spanning five levels of
reduction. Table 2 demonstrates the most frequently cited academic journal by level of reduction.
Table 2
Most frequently cited papers by academic journal

Reduction Most cited Citation Journal Second most Citation Journal
16
Level academic journal frequency Impact cited academic Frequency impact
Factor journal factor
Introspection Trends in 1 21.147 Journal of 1 3.358
(n = 2) Cognitive Experimental
Science psychology:
Human
Perception and
Performance
Psychological Journal of 3 2.78 Cognition 2 3.634

(n = 15) Experimental
Psychology
Brain Region Journal of 4 2.887 Journal of 3 5.357

(n = 16) Neurophysiology Cognitive
Neuroscience
Cellular Neuron 4 13.974 Nature 2 17.839

(n = 15) Neuroscience
Genetic Proceedings of 3 9.661 Neuropsychology 3 3.269

(n = 15) the National
Academy of
Sciences in the
United States of
America
A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to compare the effects of reduction level on data
variability across the introspection (n = 2), psychological (n = 15), brain region (n = 16), cellular (n =
15) and genetic (n = 15) level of reduction (Figure 1). Due to a low sample of size of papers in the
introspection level (n=2) along with significant score disagreement in the classification survey, the
introspection level was removed from the meta-analysis results. Similarly, due to the significant score
disagreement in the classification survey, the cellular level was excluded from the results. The average
coefficients of variation demonstrated a significant linear decrease from brain region level to the
genetic level and a significant linear increase from psychological level to the brain region level.
17
However the psychological level showed similar variability levels compared to the genetic level.
[Figure 1.; F(3,57) = 6.416, p = 0.001].
Figure 1.
Average coefficient of variation for each level of reduction
Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for the
psychological level (M = 14.33, SD =16.07) was significantly lower than the brain region level (M =
36.84, SD = 24.15), p = 0.003. The brain region level’s average coefficient of variation (M = 36.84,
SD = 24.1479) was significantly higher than the cellular level (M = 20.24, SD = 12.20), p = 0.045 and
the genetic level (M = 12.85 , SD = 13.02), p= 0.001. While the cellular level (M= 20.24, SD = 12.20)
demonstrated a linear decline in comparison to the brain region and genetic level, it was not
significantly higher than the genetic level (M = 12.85, SD = 13.02), p = 0.64.

18
Chapter 4: Discussion
4.1 Proposed Reduction Models of Attention
The results of the meta-analysis can be interpreted to demonstrate the existence of two
distinctive reduction models of attention. The Brain Region to Genetic Model (1) reflects the validated
ability of reducing attentional brain region level data to genetic levels of reduction in a linear fashion.
This validation is demonstrated by the significant linear decrease between the brain region level and the
genetic level. The Non-Linear Psychological Model (2) reflects the inability to reduce psychological
data, suggesting that attentional data at this level follows laws of non-linearity and could therefore be
interpreted as a causally bidirectional property of lower reduction levels. It is proposed that causal data
originating from lower reduction levels aiming to explain psychological level attentional data should be
considered with scepticism. On the other hand, genetic-level causal data regarding attentional processes
at the brain region-level should be attributed with a higher degree of dependent variable measurement
precision along with better means of isolating the given attentional causal mechanism compared to
brain region level methodologies.
These two interpretations are not entirely novel within a historical context. For example, in the
scientific literature on vision it is common-place to identify psychological level components such as
colour, depth perception, object recognition, edge and border detection, movement detection, and then
reduce them to cellular and even genetic levels. The rationale is that by having a detailed
comprehension of how each individual component functions, vision will be explained in its entirety. To
illustrate, in the middle of the 20th century many pioneering neuroscientists were performing
intracellular recordings in the hopes of mapping out the complete cellular basis of vision. Hubel and
Wiesel (1962) identified neurons that only responded to edges of objects, colour, contrasts and other
sub components of vision. Their models identified linear pathways originating from the stimulation of a
single retinal cell to the activation of a single neuron in the visual cortex.
19
The Hubel and Wiesel models lead them to predict with complete accuracy the cellular end-
state with information from the starting state and vice versa. Hubel and Wiesel called the cells in the
linear pathways, simple cells. When they further pursued their research to neuronal cells beyond the
first layer of the visual cortex, they encountered what they called complex cells. That is, cells that do
not behave in a predictable manner in response to identical stimulus at the retinal cells. They
discovered that even the simplest behaviour demonstrated high levels of neuronal variability within the
cortical layers, nullifying the usefulness of intracellular recordings in determining a neuronal model of
vision. Comparatively, the results of the current meta-analysis suggests a similar phenomenon across
the scientific literature on attention. Which is that, the psychological level cannot be successfully
reduced to its component parts in a reductive and linear manner when it comes to attention because of
the potential causal bidirectional properties of its non-linear system behaviour.
4.2 Meta-Analysis Limitations
While many historical case studies can be paralleled to the interpretations of the meta-analysis,
it is important to discuss the limitations of this study before further generalizing the results. An initial
limitation concerns the validity of comparing variability measurements across reduction levels. Such a
methodology rests upon the conceptual assumption that variability in data is representative of an inter-
disciplinary phenomenon. As explained in the introduction, variability is representative of two distinct
processes: either it can signify the presence of a confounding variable and/or it can be representative of
measurement error. The assumption of the meta-analysis rests upon the belief that these two processes
of variability are inter-disciplinary in nature. For example, the variability associated with EEG
readings, in respect to attention, could easily be attributable to environmental artifacts or an insufficient
amount of electrodes or even to low quality software. These causal factors of variability are within the
bounds of the methodologies of the brain region reduction level. The interdisciplinary assumption of
the meta-analysis, posits that variability could also be attributed to other levels of reduction. For
20
example, it has been shown that blood carbon dioxide levels, hypoglycemia, metabolite level and a
number of other genetic factors introduce significant variability to normal EEG patterns (Vogel, 1989).
This demonstrates the interdisciplinary nature of variability as it relates to the brain region level of
reduction within the attentional literature. The limitation lies in the degree to which this assumption is
generalizable not only to other levels of reduction within the attentional literature but also across other
scientifically studied phenomenon. In other words, the meta-analysis is only valid if some of the
variability associated at one level is attributable to another, irrespective of whether the relationship is
linear or non-linear.
A second limitation to the study was the sample size, the number of papers in each of the levels
of reduction. This was due to the gruelling process of manually measuring the standard error indicator
in each of the figures that featured dependent variables. To obtain more robust sample sizes, future
research should aim to use an automated software with the capabilities of scanning papers for
variability measures. Additionally the most reductionist levels (cellular and genetic) often did not
include statistically treated results. This meant that a large number of papers in these levels were
rejected solely based on the lack of variability measurements. While this contributed to the small
sample size it may have also created a bias sample, whereby only the research papers providing
variability measures were analyzed. For example, in the case of genetic level studies this meant that
research papers investigating sub-cellular mechanism were underrepresented compared to experiments
using reaction time as a dependent variable and genome expression as the independent variable. Such
sample bias is inherent to the methodology of the meta-analysis and can be assumed to have affected
each level of reduction in one degree or another. To determine whether such sample bias sufficiently
affected the results of the meta-analysis different topics will need to be analyzed and compared in order
to rule out the possibility that the sample bias sufficiently altered the averaged variability coefficients
associated to each reduction level.
21
4.3 Conclusion
In conclusion, the cognitive process of selectively concentrating on a single piece of information,
i,e., attention, can be studied across multiple disciplines spanning many levels of reduction, but the
degree with which the most reductive discipline can be said to be causally related to the most holistic
discipline is questionable at best. The overall results of this study suggest that attentional processes at
the psychological reduction level be regarded as conceptually and causally independent of attentional
processes at more reductive levels, as defined by the Non-linear Psychological Model of Attention.
Conversely, the results of this study indicate that attentional processes at the brain region level are
linearly reducible to more reductive levels. This suggests that the genetic level be given more causal
explanatory power over the brain region level, as defined by the Brain Region to Genetic Model of
Attention.
Future work using similar methodologies should aim to analyze other human phenomenon such as
sleep, perception or memory. The results of such studies could prove helpful in determining the validity
of the results obtained in this study. More specifically, a convergence of similar studies could lead to
the establishment of a general model of linear and non-linear human phenomenon and sub-models
detailing reduction level thresholds.
22
References
Altman, N., & Krzywinski, M. (2015). Points of significance: Sources of variation. Nature Methods,
12(1), 5–6.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working Memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–
89.
Blasi, G., Mattay, V. S., Bertolino, A., Elvevåg, B., Callicott, J. H., Das, S.,Weinberger, D. R. (2005).
Effect of Catechol-O-Methyltransferase val158met Genotype on Attentional Control. Journal of
Neuroscience, 25(20), 5038–5045.
Brefczynski, J. A., & DeYoe, E. A. (1999). A physiological correlate of the “spotlight” of visual
attention. Nature Neuroscience, 2(4), 370–374
Dayalu, P., & Albin, R. L. (2015). Huntington disease: pathogenesis and treatment. Neurologic Clinics,
33(1), 101–114.
de Jong, S. W., Huisman, M. H. B., Sutedja, N. A., van der Kooi, A. J., de Visser, M., Schelhaas, H. J.,
van den Berg, L. H. (2012). Smoking, alcohol consumption, and the risk of amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis: a population-based study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 176(3), 233–239.
Descartes, R. (1647). Meditations on First Philosophy. Raleigh, N.C.: Generic NL Freebook Publisher.
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., & Baaren, R. B. van. (2006). On Making the Right
Choice: The Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect. Science, 311(5763), 1005–1007.
Hutchins, B. R. (2015). Descartes, Corpuscles and Reductionism: Mechanism and Systems in
Descartes’ Physiology. The Philosophical Quarterly, 65(261), 669–689.
Kim, J. (1999). Making Sense of Emergence. Philosophical Studies, 95(1-2), 3–36.
Kogan, J. H., Franklandand, P. W., & Silva, A. J. (2000). Long-term memory underlying hippocampus-
dependent social recognition in mice. Hippocampus, 10(1), 47–56.
23
Lesne, A., & Victor, J.-M. (2006). Chromatin fiber functional organization: Some plausible models.
The European Physical Journal E, 19(3), 279–290.
Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 20(2),
130–141.
Lowney, C. (2011). Rethinking the Machine Metaphor Since Descartes: On the Irreducibility of Bodies,
Minds, and Meanings. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 31(3), 179–192.
Mazzocchi, F. (2012). Complexity and the reductionism–holism debate in systems biology. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Systems Biology and Medicine, 4(5), 413–427.
Polanyi, M. (1968). Life’s Irreducible Structure. Science, 160(3834), 1308–1312.
Reynolds, J. H., Pasternak, T., & Desimone, R. (2000). Attention Increases Sensitivity of V4 Neurons.
Neuron, 26(3), 703–714.
Spataro, P., Mulligan, N. W., & Rossi-Arnaud, C. (2013). Divided attention can enhance memory
encoding: The attentional boost effect in implicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 1223–1231.
van Emmerik, R. E. A., Ducharme, S. W., Amado, A. C., & Hamill, J. (2016). Comparing dynamical
systems concepts and techniques for biomechanical analysis. Journal of Sport and Health
Science, 5(1), 3–13
Vogel, F. (1989). Genetic Variation of the Normal Human EEG. In Genetics of the Epilepsies (pp. 85–
94). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Werndl, C. (2009). What Are the New Implications of Chaos for Unpredictability? The British Journal
for the Philosophy of Science, 60(1), 195–220.
24
Appendices
Appendix A: Raw Meta-Analysis Data
Level of Title of paper SD M N CV SUM SUM

reduction CV CV
Level
Phenomenal 124.95
Level (n=2)
Koch, C., & Tsuchiya, N. (2007). Attention and consciousness: two distinct brain
processes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(1), 16–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.012
0.6 3.6 16.67
0.9 4.2 21.43
1.2 2.3 52.17
1.1 5.9 18.64
1.7 5.5 30.91

1.3 2.5 52.00
2 0.5 400.00
1.6 5.1 31.37
0.3 5.6 5.36

0.15 6.5 2.31
0.15 6.5 2.31
0.4 5.7 7.08 53.35
Suzuki, S., & Grabowecky, M. (2003). Attention during adaptation weakens negative
afterimages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 29(4), 793–807. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.4.793
3 0.3 1200.00
1.8 2.5 72.00
4.8 6 80.00
0.5 8.2 6.10

0.5 7.3 6.85
0.6 11 5.45
0.6 11 5.45 196.55
Psychological 14.31
Level (n = 15)
Seli, P., Cheyne, J. A., & Smilek, D. (2012). Attention failures versus misplaced
diligence: Separating attention lapses from speed–accuracy trade-offs.
25
Consciousness and Cognition, 21(1), 277–291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.017
0.24 1.24 2.2 3.24
0.25 0.47 30 9.71
0.24 0.27 30 16.23
0.26 0.37 30 12.83
91.39 349.65 30 4.77
102.34 352.88 30 5.29
116.61 440.95 30 4.83
116.97 393.73 30 5.42
0.08 0.26 30 5.62
0.09 0.28 30 5.87
0.08 0.26 30 5.62
0.13 0.33 30 7.19
0.2 0.46 30 7.94

0.22 0.5 30 8.03
0.23 0.56 30 7.50
0.22 0.63 30 6.38
0.21 0.22 30 17.43
0.2 0.27 30 13.52
0.22 0.27 30 14.88
0.25 0.32 30 14.26
82.39 348.61 30 4.31
96.47 356.76 30 4.94
93.39 326.95 30 5.22
105.76 332.4 30 5.81
93.9 457.1 30 3.75
95.5 461.66 30 3.78
116.92 432.86 30 4.93
118.33 432.5 30 5.00
0.08 0.29 30 5.04
0.11 0.32 30 6.28
0.14 0.28 30 9.13
0.2 0.39 30 9.36
0.09 0.25 30 6.57
0.12 0.27 30 8.11
0.07 0.24 30 5.33
0.13 0.28 30 8.48 7.57
Zhang, L., Ding, C., Li, H., Zhang, Q., & Chen, A. (2012). The influence of
attentional control on stimulus processing is category specific in Stroop tasks.
Psychological Research, 77(5), 599–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-
0457-5
85 490 17.35
120 530 22.64
115 580 19.83
26
105 570 18.42
190 630 30.16
95 570 16.67
100 520 19.23

120 550 21.82
190 775 24.52
170 700 24.29
100 490 20.41
120 500 24.00
150 470 31.91
170 540 31.48 23.05
McAvinue, L. P., Habekost, T., Johnson, K. A., Kyllingsbæk, S., Vangkilde, S.,
Bundesen, C., & Robertson, I. H. (2012). Sustained attention, attentional
selectivity, and attentional capacity across the lifespan. Attention, Perception,
& Psychophysics, 74(8), 1570–1582. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-
0352-6
1.6 6.8 23.53

1.8 5.5 32.73
1.5 5.5 27.27
0.9 6.4 14.06
1.8 6.2 29.03
1.9 7.5 25.33
2.2 6.5 33.85
3 9.2 32.61
1.3 6.8 19.12

2.2 10.1 21.78
1.1 9.6 11.46
2 9.1 21.98
1.9 7.8 24.36
1.4 5.4 25.93
1.2 5.5 21.82
0.9 3.5 25.71 24.41
Kuo, C.-Y., & Chao, H.-F. (2014). Role of attentional tags in working memory-driven
attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
and Performance, 40(4), 1301–1307. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036451
44 490 8.98
55 450 12.22
55 430 12.79
46 480 9.58
51 455 11.21
52 485 10.72
27
42 483 8.70
42 450 9.33
36 460 7.83
38 457 8.32 9.97
Mulligan, N. W., Smith, S. A., & Spataro, P. (2016). The attentional boost effect and
context memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 42(4), 598–607.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.carleton.ca/10.1037/xlm0000183
0.04 0.67 5.97

0.03 0.72 4.17
0.03 0.55 5.45
0.03 0.61 4.92
0.04 0.61 6.56

0.04 0.6 6.67
0.04 0.72 5.56
0.03 0.77 3.90 5.40
Spataro, P., Mulligan, N. W., & Rossi-Arnaud, C. (2013). Divided attention can
enhance memory encoding: The attentional boost effect in implicit memory.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
39(4), 1223–1231.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.carleton.ca/10.1037/a0030907
3.4 9.7 35.05

3 4.9 61.22
3 5.4 55.56
2.4 5.3 45.28
2 9.5 21.05
4 4.3 93.02
3 4.2 71.43
4.2 4.7 89.36
4.2 5.4 77.78

4.4 4.5 97.78
4 5.9 67.80
5.2 6.6 78.79 66.18
Giambra, L. M., & Quilter, R. E. (1988). Sustained attention in adulthood: A unique,

large-sample, longitudinal and multicohort analysis using the Mackworth
Clock-Test. Psychology and Aging, 3(1), 75–83.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.carleton.ca/10.1037/0882-
7974.3.1.75
146 483 16 7.56

28
103 411 16 6.27
116 613 12 5.46
155 559 12 8.00
121 452 18 6.31
147 512 18 6.77
92 450 7 7.73
179 547 7 12.37 7.56
Guy, J., Rogers, M., & Cornish, K. (2013). Age-related changes in visual and
auditory sustained attention in preschool-aged children. Child
Neuropsychology, 19(6), 601–614.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2012.710321
2.8 13.3 21.05
2 8.8 22.73
1.3 7.1 18.31
1.4 7 20.00
2.5 10.2 24.51
2 7.3 27.40
1 5.6 17.86
0.9 4.9 18.37 21.28
Rezazadeh, S. M., Wilding, J., & Cornish, K. (2011). The Relationship Between
Measures of Cognitive Attention and Behavioral Ratings of Attention in
Typically Developing Children. Child Neuropsychology, 17(2), 197–208.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2010.532203
1.77 2.41 31 13.19

1.58 2.95 31 9.62 11.41
79.18 322.18 49 3.51

76.38 340.64 199 1.59
75.46 367.11 131 1.80
68.6 356.1 70 2.30
90.26 413.72 146 1.81
89.02 416.16 43 3.26 2.38
Finkbeiner, K., Wilson, K., Russell, P., & Helton, W. (2015). The effects of warning
cues and attention-capturing stimuli on the sustained attention to response
task. Experimental Brain Research, 233(4), 1061–1068.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4179-3
75.7 279.01 38 4.40
74.45 288.77 38 4.18
65.84 340.78 38 3.13
60.95 338.87 38 2.92 3.66
Robertson, I. H., Manly, T., Andrade, J., Baddeley, B. T., & Yiend, J. (1997). `Oops!’:
29
Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain
injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 35(6), 747–758.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00015-8
78.3 372.8 75 2.43
84.9 397.1 75 2.47
43.6 300.4 75 1.68
25.2 305.9 75 0.95 1.88
Manly, T., Robertson, I. H., Galloway, M., & Hawkins, K. (1999). The absent mind.
Neuropsychologia, 37(6), 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-
3932(98)00127-4
60 340 17.65
50 345 14.49
55 360 15.28
45 415 10.84 14.57
Willison, J., & Tombaugh, T. N. (2006). Detecting simulation of attention deficits

using reaction time tests ☆. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21(1), 41–
52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2005.07.005
442.11 885.74 15 12.89
26.33 284.61 15 2.39
62.7 296 15 5.47
209.04 435.46 15 12.39
725.23 1245.4 15 15.04

69 496.56 15 3.59
124.75 521.17 15 6.18
457.82 799.78 15 14.78
1272.1 1978.4 15 16.60

8
97.5 689.06 15 3.65
165.45 725.02 15 5.89
654.49 1311.4 15 12.89 9.31
Swallow, K. M., & Jiang, Y. V. (2010). The Attentional Boost Effect: Transient
increases in attention to one task enhance performance in a second task.
Cognition, 115(1), 118–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.003
0.07 0.65 10.77
0.09 0.7 12.86
0.1 0.7 14.29
0.1 0.71 14.08
0.12 0.63 19.05
0.09 0.63 14.29
0.07 0.8 8.75
0.15 0.62 24.19
0.1 0.68 14.71
0.08 0.74 10.81
30
0.07 0.73 9.59
0.06 0.75 8.00
0.09 0.71 12.68
0.06 0.62 9.68

0.09 0.59 15.25
0.1 0.7 14.29
0.08 0.75 10.67
0.12 0.7 17.14
0.08 0.61 13.11
0.08 0.8 10.00
0.08 0.5 16.00
0.19 0.69 27.54
0.1 0.61 16.39
0.06 0.7 8.57
0.1 0.7 14.29
0.15 0.61 24.59
0.13 0.61 21.31 14.55
López-Barroso, D., Cucurell, D., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., & de Diego-Balaguer, R.

(2016). Attentional effects on rule extraction and consolidation from speech.
Cognition, 152, 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.03.016
25 550 4.55
25 540 4.63
25 550 4.55
35 535 6.54
23 478 4.81
25 500 5.00
25 560 4.46
25 575 4.35
35 455 7.69
30 450 6.67
45 465 9.68
45 440 10.23
30 400 7.50
25 415 6.02
25 460 5.43
20 465 4.30 6.03
Brain Region 36.43
Level (n = 16)
31
Wilkins, A. J., Shallice, T., & McCarthy, R. (1987). Frontal lesions and sustained
attention. Neuropsychologia, 25(2), 359–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-
3932(87)90024-8
3 10 7 11.34
6 13 7 17.44
5 16 7 11.81
11 23 13 13.26
11 21 13 14.53
12 24 13 13.87
10 13 23 16.04
10 19 23 10.97
11 19 23 12.07
10 18 26 10.90
9 24 26 7.35
12 22 26 10.70 12.52
Brefczynski, J. A., & DeYoe, E. A. (1999). A physiological correlate of the

“spotlight” of visual attention. Nature Neuroscience, 2(4), 370–374.
https://doi.org/10.1038/7280
11.30
15.00
10.83
16.67 13.45
Beauchamp, M. S., Cox, R. W., & Deyoe, E. A. (1997). Graded Effects of Spatial and
Featural Attention on Human Area MT and Associated Motion Processing
Areas. Journal of Neurophysiology, 78(1), 516–520.
0.00
32.26
15.00
0.00
64.71
66.67 29.77
Baldauf, D., & Desimone, R. (2014). Neural Mechanisms of Object-Based Attention.

Science, 344(6182), 424–427. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1247003
40.00
40.00
40.48
53.13
30.00
20.00
18.56
30.30
32.43
32.93
31.67
32
24.42
50.00
28.26
43.33
63.89 36.21
Lagemann, L., Okamoto, H., Teismann, H., & Pantev, C. (2010). Bottom-up driven
involuntary attention modulates auditory signal in noise processing. BMC
Neuroscience, 11, 156.
10.47
5.15
6.14
7.92
21.15
22.03 12.14
van der Veen, F. M., Lange, J. J., van der Molen, M. W., Mulder, G., & Mulder, L. J.
M. (2000). Event-related brain potential and heart rate manifestations of
visual selective attention. Psychophysiology, 37(5), 677–682.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.3750677
50 892 5.61
60 898 6.68
60 900 6.67
60 896 6.70 6.41
Gould, I. C., Rushworth, M. F., & Nobre, A. C. (2011). Indexing the graded
allocation of visuospatial attention using anticipatory alpha oscillations.
Journal of Neurophysiology, 105(3), 1318–1326.
https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00653.2010
4 3 133.33
6 1 600.00
5 4.5 111.11
4.5 1.5 300.00
2 5.2 38.46
2 2.2 90.91
3 3.4 88.24
4.3 1.5 286.67
5 6.8 73.53
5.5 1.1 500.00
3.5 10 35.00
4 6.5 61.54 87.08
Yantis, S., Schwarzbach, J., Serences, J. T., Carlson, R. L., Steinmetz, M. A., Pekar, J.
J., & Courtney, S. M. (2002). Transient neural activity in human parietal
cortex during spatial attention shifts. Nature Neuroscience, 5(10), 995–1002.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nn921
33
1.7 8.8 19.32
1.2 8.4 14.29
0.8 2.5 32.00
1.6 5.2 30.77
1.4 2.6 53.85

1.6 3.6 44.44
1.4 7.2 19.44
1.6 8.5 18.82
1 3.2 31.25
0.8 3.5 22.86
1 5 20.00
0.8 6 13.33
1.2 1.7 70.59

1.2 7.7 15.58
1.2 1.5 80.00
1.5 9 16.67 31.45
Kastner, S., Pinsk, M. A., De Weerd, P., Desimone, R., & Ungerleider, L. G. (1999).
Increased Activity in Human Visual Cortex during Directed Attention in the
Absence of Visual Stimulation. Neuron, 22(4), 751–761.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80734-5
35 411 8.52
20 338 5.92
24 391 6.14
32 399 8.02
18 153 11.76
39 119 32.77
47 384 12.24
19 281 6.76
41 468 8.76
37 432 8.56
26 200 13.00
55 232 23.71
56 540 10.37
30 361 8.31
34
54 697 7.75
55 601 9.15
43 297 14.48
30 291 10.31
42 444 9.46
33 341 9.68
42 586 7.17
31 522 5.94
31 194 15.98
39 170 22.94 12.07
Silver, M. A., Ress, D., & Heeger, D. J. (2007). Neural Correlates of Sustained
Spatial Attention in Human Early Visual Cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology,
97(1), 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00677.2006
19 110 17.27
22 224 9.82
26 181 14.36
16 78 20.51
14 69 20.29
34 200 17.00
33 232 14.22
32 180 17.78
32 196 16.33
33 157 21.02
45 189 23.81
31 54 57.41
18 22 81.82
15 38 39.47
14 54 25.93
17 112 15.18
72 365 19.73
19 116 16.38
72 15 480.00
92 22 418.18
78 118 66.10
35
66 273 24.18
63 338 18.64
78 347 22.48 61.58
O’Connell, R. G., Dockree, P. M., Bellgrove, M. A., Turin, A., Ward, S., Foxe, J. J., &
Robertson, I. H. (2009). Two Types of Action Error: Electrophysiological
Evidence for Separable Inhibitory and Sustained Attention Neural
Mechanisms Producing Error on Go/No-go Tasks. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 21(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21008
34 31.2 13 30.22
32.2 28.1 13 31.78
44.3 39.4 13 31.18
33.7 29.3 13 31.90

48.6 37.8 13 35.66
49.2 38.5 13 35.44 32.70
Tootell, R. B. H., Hadjikhani, N., Hall, E. K., Marrett, S., Vanduffel, W., Vaughan, J.
T., & Dale, A. M. (1998). The Retinotopy of Visual Spatial Attention. Neuron,
21(6), 1409–1422. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80659-5
0.3 6.6 4.55
2 1.3 153.85
0.8 4.1 19.51
0.6 0.3 200.00
0.7 1 70.00
0.8 5.8 13.79
0.3 0.3 100.00
1 5.3 18.87
0.5 1.5 33.33

0.7 1.9 36.84
1.9 3.5 54.29
0.6 1.5 40.00
0.9 4.3 20.93
0.8 1.8 44.44
1.2 4.8 25.00
0.3 2.3 13.04
0.6 5.4 11.11
0.8 1.7 47.06
36
0.5 5 10.00
0.7 1.3 53.85 48.52
Leonards, U., Sunaert, S., Hecke, P. V., & Orban, G. A. (2000). Attention Mechanisms
in Visual Search—An fMRI Study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
12(Supplement 2), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892900564073
1.2 1.5 80.00
1 2.3 43.48
1.2 2.2 54.55
1.6 4.2 38.10
1 2.6 38.46
1.2 6.8 17.65
1.7 1.4 121.43
0.5 4.5 11.11
0.6 1.5 40.00

1.1 1.7 64.71
0.8 2.6 30.77
2 4.2 47.62
0.01 2.4 0.42

1 5.5 18.18
0.9 1.2 75.00
0.2 4 5.00
Yeh, Y.-Y., Kuo, B.-C., & Liu, H.-L. (2007). The neural correlates of attention
orienting in visuospatial working memory for detecting feature and
conjunction changes. Brain Research, 1130, 146–157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.10.065
0.8 3 26.67
0.5 2.75 18.18
0.8 2.5 32.00
1.2 2.3 52.17

1.1 3.6 30.56
1.2 1.8 66.67
1.1 3 36.67
37
1.1 3.4 32.35
1 2 50.00 38.36
Ansari, D., Lyons, I. M., Eimeren, L. van, & Xu, F. (2007). Linking Visual Attention
and Number Processing in the Brain: The Role of the Temporo-parietal
Junction in Small and Large Symbolic and Nonsymbolic Number
Comparison. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(11), 1845–1853.
https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.11.1845
3.2 2.6 123.08
3.4 5 68.00
2.6 3.5 74.29
3 6.3 47.62
1.9 3.2 59.38

1 5 20.00
1.2 3.6 33.33

1.4 5 28.00
0.7 5.5 12.73

0.8 5.6 14.29
20 135 14.81
20 152 13.16 42.39
Shulman, G. L., McAvoy, M. P., Cowan, M. C., Astafiev, S. V., Tansy, A. P.,
d’Avossa, G., & Corbetta, M. (2003). Quantitative analysis of attention and
detection signals during visual search. Journal of Neurophysiology, 90(5),
3384–3397. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00343.2003
20 26 76.92
25 37 67.57
27 241 11.20
39 139 28.06
39 22 177.27
30 15 200.00
23 13 176.92
25 9 277.78
26 9 288.89
38
23 16 143.75
11 17 64.71
50 309 16.18
54 286 18.88
35 180 19.44
27 140 19.29
29 50 58.00
27 40 67.50
23 14 164.29
35 62 56.45
34 320 10.63
43 219 19.63
39 87 44.83
34 88 38.64
26 50 52.00
25 43 58.14
25 22 113.64
15 15 100.00
11 27 40.74
19 10 190.00
53 321 16.51
39 210 18.57
24 181 13.26
34 69 49.28
29 43 67.44
25 26 96.15 81.79
Cellular level 20.24
( n = 15)
Shepherd, S. V., Klein, J. T., Deaner, R. O., & Platt, M. L. (2009). Mirroring of
attention by neurons in macaque parietal cortex. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(23), 9489–9494.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900419106
1.4 8.7 16.09

39
1.7 9.7 17.53
1.3 3.5 37.14
1.3 2.3 56.52
1 1.7 58.82
1.8 5.1 35.29
1.1 1.5 73.33
1.2 2 60.00 44.34
Connor, C. E., Gallant, J. L., Preddie, D. C., & Essen, D. C. V. (1996). Responses in
area V4 depend on the spatial relationship between stimulus and attention.
Journal of Neurophysiology, 75(3), 1306–1308.
1 2.3 43.48
0.2 12 1.74
2 6.9 28.99
1 3.6 27.78
1 2.3 43.48
1 4.8 20.83
1.2 7.9 15.19
1 8.4 11.90
1 5.6 17.86
2 3.6 55.56
0.6 3.7 16.22

1.2 7.8 15.38
2 9.3 21.51
2.2 10 22.00
2.2 9 24.44
0.8 4.5 17.78

1.2 7 17.14
2.2 9 24.44
1.2 6 20.00
1 3.2 31.25 23.85
Reynolds, J. H., Pasternak, T., & Desimone, R. (2000). Attention Increases

Sensitivity of V4 Neurons. Neuron, 26(3), 703–714.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(00)81206-4
0.15 5.3 2.83
0.6 7.3 8.22
0.75 9.4 7.98
0.35 7.5 4.67
0.3 7.4 4.05
0.35 8 4.38
0.15 5.2 2.88

0.45 4.2 10.71
0.6 5.9 10.17
40
0.45 7.3 6.16
0.4 7.9 5.06
0.4 9 4.44
0.2 4.2 4.76

0.35 4.7 7.45
0.4 6.4 6.25
0.25 7.9 3.16
0.35 8.7 4.02
0.3 9.2 3.26
0.2 4.1 4.88

0.4 4 10.00
0.25 5.2 4.81
0.25 7.4 3.38
0.35 8 4.38
0.35 8.9 3.93 5.49
Bobier, B., Stewart, T. C., & Eliasmith, C. (2014). A unifying mechanistic model of
selective attention in spiking neurons. PLoS Computational Biology, 10(6),
e1003577.
1.6 4 40.00
1.7 4.8 35.42
2.1 6.9 30.43
1 4.7 21.28
0.7 8.8 7.95
0.5 7.8 6.41
0.6 8.8 6.82
0.6 8.8 6.82
1.6 3.5 45.71

1.9 4.2 45.24
1.9 5.4 35.19
2.1 7.1 29.58
0.9 4.2 21.43
0.3 6.2 4.84
0.4 7.8 5.13
0.4 7.8 5.13 21.71
Lee, J., & Maunsell, J. H. R. (n.d.). A normalization model of attentional modulation
of single unit responses. PLoS ONE, 4(2), e4651.
0.2 1.4 14.29
0.2 0.9 22.22
0.3 1.4 21.43
0.2 1.3 15.38
0.4 1.2 33.33
0.2 1 20.00
0.4 1.8 22.22
0.2 1.4 14.29
41
0.9 5.1 17.65
0.5 3 16.67
0.6 8.7 6.90
0.6 3.5 17.14
0.4 9 4.44
0.9 3.2 28.13
0.4 8.9 4.49
0.6 3 20.00
0.7 4.2 16.67

0.6 4.3 13.95
0.6 4.3 13.95
0.5 4.5 11.11
0.6 4.5 13.33
0.7 5.2 13.46
0.7 5.3 13.21
0.4 4.6 8.70
0.6 7.9 7.59
0.6 6.8 8.82
0.6 8.7 6.90
0.6 7.3 8.22
0.5 8.6 5.81
0.7 7.5 9.33
0.4 8.3 4.82
0.4 7.8 5.13 13.74
Connor, C. E., Preddie, D. C., Gallant, J. L., & Van Essen, D. C. (1997). Spatial
attention effects in macaque area V4. The Journal of Neuroscience: The
Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 17(9), 3201–3214.
0.8 2.1 38.10
1.2 4 30.00
0.6 4.1 14.63
0.4 2.6 15.38
0.5 2.2 22.73
0.4 4.6 8.70

0.8 7.8 10.26
0.3 4.6 6.52
0.8 3.8 21.05
0.3 2.8 10.71
42
0.8 2.3 34.78
0.8 5.1 15.69
1.2 6.5 18.46
1.5 6.7 22.39
2.2 7 31.43
0.8 4.5 17.78

0.8 7.6 10.53
1.5 8.2 18.29
1 6 16.67
0.4 3.5 11.43
0.5 1.5 33.33

0.4 0.9 44.44
0.4 2.5 16.00

0.5 2.7 18.52
0.5 4 12.50
0.4 2.8 14.29
0.05 0.5 10.00
0.01 0.5 2.00

0.4 1 40.00
0.01 0.5 2.00

1.2 3.6 33.33
1.4 6.8 20.59
0.8 5.4 14.81
1.2 2.4 50.00 20.22
Motter, B. C. (1993). Focal attention produces spatially selective processing in visual

cortical areas V1, V2, and V4 in the presence of competing stimuli. Journal of
Neurophysiology, 70(3), 909–919.
1.1 5.6 19.64
43
1.1 3.5 31.43
0.9 6.2 14.52

0.6 4.9 12.24
0.6 8.6 6.98

0.6 7.6 7.89
0.7 9 7.78
0.6 7.6 7.89
0.6 7 8.57
0.4 5.8 6.90
1 6.2 16.13
0.9 4.3 20.93
0.9 5.3 16.98
1.1 3.2 34.38
1 7.4 13.51
1.5 5 30.00
1 6.3 15.87
0.6 5.2 11.54
0.9 6.6 13.64

0.6 5.6 10.71
0.8 7.5 10.67
0.6 5.6 10.71
1 6.2 16.13
0.6 4.8 12.50
0.8 6.4 12.50
0.5 5.3 9.43
44
0.8 5.6 14.29
0.4 4.6 8.70
0.8 4.6 17.39
0.5 3.5 14.29
0.4 6.5 6.15

0.3 5 6.00
0.5 5.5 9.09
0.5 3.8 13.16
1 5.6 17.86
0.5 3.6 13.89
1 7.2 13.89
0.8 5.5 14.55
0.6 6.3 9.52

1 4.4 22.73
0.5 6.4 7.81
0.9 3.9 23.08
0.8 5.8 13.79
1 4.2 23.81
0.7 6.1 11.48
1.1 3.2 34.38
0.6 5.6 10.71
0.8 4.1 19.51
1.5 5.1 29.41

0.8 2.5 32.00
1.1 5.2 21.15

0.5 3.6 13.89
0.5 4.9 10.20

45
0.5 3.4 14.71
0.6 5.3 11.32

0.5 3.5 14.29 15.22
McAdams, C. J., & Maunsell, J. H. R. (1999). Effects of Attention on the Reliability

of Individual Neurons in Monkey Visual Cortex. Neuron, 23(4), 765–773.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(01)80034-9
0.5 1.5 33.33
0.3 1.7 17.65
0.6 2.6 23.08
0.7 3.5 20.00
0.4 3.3 12.12
0.5 3.7 13.51
0.7 3.5 20.00
0.5 2.5 20.00
0.6 1.8 33.33
0.2 1 20.00
0.2 1.3 15.38
0.4 1.5 26.67
0.3 2.2 13.64

0.4 3 13.33
0.6 4.5 13.33
1 5.1 19.61
1.1 6.2 17.74
0.9 3.1 29.03
1.2 5.7 21.05
0.4 4.2 9.52
0.25 2.4 10.42
0.2 1.6 12.50
0.3 1.5 20.00 18.92
Lee, J., & Maunsell, J. H. R. (2010). Attentional Modulation of MT Neurons with

46
Single or Multiple Stimuli in Their Receptive Fields. Journal of
Neuroscience, 30(8), 3058–3066. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3766-
09.2010
3 33 9.09
3 37 8.11
3 31 9.68
5 37 13.51
3 35 8.57
6 41 14.63
6 40 15.00
6 41 14.63
6 41 14.63
6 41 14.63
10 94 10.64
9 90 10.00
9 91 9.89
11 103 10.68
11 97 11.34
14 212 6.60
14 208 6.73
14 211 6.64
16 230 6.96
14 226 6.19 10.41
Cohen, M. R., & Maunsell, J. H. R. (2009). Attention improves performance

primarily by reducing interneuronal correlations. Nature Neuroscience,
12(12), 1594–1600. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2439
11 49 22.45
13 85 15.29
18 112 16.07
26 155 16.77
35 186 18.82
47
50 217 23.04
82 237 34.60
91 300 30.33
9 23 39.13
13 39 33.33
16 56 28.57
23 73 31.51
25 81 30.86
25 107 23.36
45 104 43.27
44 158 27.85 27.20
Herrero, J. L., Gieselmann, M. A., Sanayei, M., & Thiele, A. (2013). Attention-
induced variance and noise correlation reduction in macaque V1 is mediated
by NMDA receptors. Neuron, 78(4), 729–739.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.03.029
3.2 36.4 82 0.97
3.6 41.9 82 0.95
2.6 24.8 82 1.16
2.8 28.1 82 1.10
6.1 47.7 43 1.95

6.9 52.1 43 2.02
6.9 55.6 43 1.89
7.6 61 43 1.90
4.1 63.6 96 0.66

3.9 68.6 96 0.58
3.6 43.7 96 0.84
3.5 46.5 96 0.77
20 253 7.91
48
13 192 6.77
18 92 19.57
13 76 17.11 4.13
Roberts, M., Delicato, L. S., Herrero, J., Gieselmann, M. A., & Thiele, A. (2007).
Attention alters spatial integration in macaque V1 in an eccentricity-
dependent manner. Nature Neuroscience, 10(11), 1483–1491.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1967
16 95 16.84
23 187 12.30
19 260 7.31
39 329 11.85
22 192 11.46
19 159 11.95
24 341 7.04
18 439 4.10
30 405 7.41
22 340 6.47
19 294 6.46
28 232 12.07
40 316 12.66
22 271 8.12
20 230 8.70
36 331 10.88
27 428 6.31
35 413 8.47
23 279 8.24
30 172 17.44
31 236 13.14
26 163 15.95
23 205 11.22
49
33 245 13.47
25 226 11.06
26 180 14.44
46 253 18.18
36 248 14.52
40 216 18.52
36 193 18.65
55 322 17.08
57 400 14.25
60 388 15.46
37 245 15.10 11.97
Chalk, M., Herrero, J. L., Gieselmann, M. A., Delicato, L. S., Gotthardt, S., & Thiele,
A. (2010). Attention Reduces Stimulus-Driven Gamma Frequency
Oscillations and Spike Field Coherence in V1. Neuron, 66(1-2), 114–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.013
33 158 20.89
21 212 9.91
31 101 30.69
28 244 11.48
32 250 12.80
34 260 13.08
28 251 11.16
28 259 10.81
40 306 13.07
28 462 6.06
30 484 6.20
47 586 8.02
22 479 4.59
30 508 5.91
48 589 8.15 11.52
Herrero, J. L., Roberts, M. J., Delicato, L. S., Gieselmann, M. A., Dayan, P., &
Thiele, A. (2008). Acetylcholine contributes through muscarinic receptors to
attentional modulation in V1. Nature, 454(7208), 1110–1114.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07141
40 115 34.78
50 281 17.79
50
60 279 21.51
14 69 20.29
45 270 16.67
36 200 18.00
32 201 15.92
40 172 23.26
28 51 54.90
40 169 23.67
64 209 30.62
48 171 28.07
55 217 25.35
76 241 31.54
55 179 30.73
44 121 36.36
58 142 40.85
51 122 41.80
41 88 46.59
44 105 41.90
44 109 40.37
48 82 58.54 31.80
McAdams, C. J., & Reid, R. C. (2005). Attention Modulates the Responses of Simple
Cells in Monkey Primary Visual Cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 25(47),
11023–11033. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2904-05.2005
23 18 127.78
36 23 156.52
36 39 92.31
41 78 52.56
51 168 30.36
85 314 27.07
83 514 16.15
114 488 23.36
77 549 14.03
51
9 613 1.47
52 254 20.47
82 416 19.71
130 555 23.42
118 645 18.29
149 683 21.82 43.02
Genetic level 13.80

(n = 15)
Greenwood, P. M., Lambert, C., Sunderland, T., & Parasuraman, R. (2005). Effects of
Apolipoprotein E Genotype on Spatial Attention, Working Memory, and Their
Interaction in Healthy, Middle-Aged Adults: Results From the National
Institute of Mental Health’s BIOCARD Study. Neuropsychology, 19(2), 199–
211. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.carleton.ca/10.1037/0894-
4105.19.2.199
25 650 3.85
15 625 2.40
15 645 2.33
15 665 2.26
15 665 2.26
15 675 2.22
15 650 2.31
20 665 3.01
15 705 2.13
30 660 4.55
30 630 4.76
20 660 3.03
30 670 4.48
40 677 5.91
35 680 5.15
30 665 4.51
30 682 4.40
25 730 3.42
50 690 7.25
55 650 8.46
50 675 7.41
60 685 8.76
40 695 5.76
40 690 5.80
60 675 8.89
52
55 690 7.97
40 765 5.23 4.76
Blasi, G., Mattay, V. S., Bertolino, A., Elvevåg, B., Callicott, J. H., Das, S., …
Weinberger, D. R. (2005). Effect of catechol-O-methyltransferase val158met
genotype on attentional control. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official
Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 25(20), 5038–5045.
https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0476-05.2005
60.5 771 7.85
35.6 692 5.15
26 727 3.58
47.2 929 5.08
51.3 839 6.11
23.8 864 2.75
43.9 ### 3.94
58.8 ### 5.78
42.8 ### 3.99
1.5 99 1.52
1.5 99 1.52
2 98 2.04
6 94 6.38
7 95 7.37
8 97 8.29
10 82 12.20
10 88 11.36
12 93 12.90 5.99
Parasuraman, R., Greenwood, P. M., Kumar, R., & Fossella, J. (2005). Beyond
heritability: neurotransmitter genes differentially modulate visuospatial
attention and working memory. Psychological Science, 16(3), 200–207.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00804.x
15.1 592 2.55

14.4 598 2.41
15.4 625 2.46
25.4 596 4.26
29 634 4.57
32.6 648 5.03
22.8 609 3.74
23.9 633 3.78
25.7 647 3.97
16.4 611 2.69
16 610 2.62
18.6 657 2.83
25.9 612 4.23
26.3 633 4.16
30.7 659 4.66
53
20.8 619 3.36
22.5 652 3.45
23.4 655 3.57
24.7 555 4.45

24.9 591 4.21
23.9 574 4.17
14.7 578 2.55
13.3 593 2.24
15.4 622 2.48
15.8 568 2.78
16.7 583 2.87
19.7 616 3.20
27.5 586 4.70
26.3 579 4.54
29.8 615 4.84
14.1 596 2.37
14.3 603 2.37
18.2 637 2.86
15.3 584 2.62
16.5 600 2.75
18.5 633 2.92 3.42
Parasuraman, R., Greenwood, P. M., & Sunderland, T. (2002). The apolipoprotein E

gene, attention, and brain function. Neuropsychology, 16(2), 254–274.
50 640 7.81
60 650 9.23
55 640 8.59
55 655 8.40
60 665 9.02
55 640 8.59
55 660 8.33
60 675 8.89
55 660 8.33 8.58
Fan, J., Fossella, J., Sommer, T., Wu, Y., & Posner, M. I. (2003). Mapping the genetic
variation of executive attention onto brain activity. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(12),
7406–7411. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0732088100
0.25 7.2 3.47
0.3 8.2 3.66
0.3 7.6 3.95
0.35 8.6 4.07
0.7 3.1 22.58
1.5 3.2 46.88
0.5 3 16.67
1.95 3.2 60.94 20.28
54
Swanson, J., Oosterlaan, J., Murias, M., Schuck, S., Flodman, P., Spence, M. A., …
Posner, M. I. (2000). Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder children with a
7-repeat allele of the dopamine receptor D4 gene have extreme behavior but
normal performance on critical neuropsychological tests of attention.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 97(9), 4754–4759. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.080070897
410.8 1014.5 19 9.29
86.1 435.9 19 4.53
147.6 520.7 19 6.50
214.8 657 19 7.50
158.6 828.9 13 5.31
54.9 412.4 13 3.69
129.1 468.4 13 7.64
114.2 569.9 13 5.56
197.6 839.2 21 5.14
49.1 394.1 21 2.72
113.7 444.5 21 5.58
120.1 559.3 21 4.69 5.68
Greene, C. M., Bellgrove, M. A., Gill, M., & Robertson, I. H. (2009). Noradrenergic
genotype predicts lapses in sustained attention. Neuropsychologia, 47(2),
591–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.10.003
84.42 386.5 113 2.05
94.09 388.81 73 2.83
62.11 359.64 12 4.99 3.29
Bellgrove, M. A., Hawi, Z., Gill, M., & Robertson, I. H. (2006). The Cognitive
Genetics of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Sustained
attention as a Candidate Phenotype. Cortex, 42(6), 838–845.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70426-X
0.88 0.71 15 32.00
1.54 0.44 17 84.89
1.14 0.62 19 42.18 53.02
Bellgrove, M. A., Hawi, Z., Lowe, N., Kirley, A., Robertson, I. H., & Gill, M. (2005).
DRD4 gene variants and sustained attention in attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD): effects of associated alleles at the VNTR and -521 SNP.
American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric Genetics:
The Official Publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics,
136B(1), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.b.30193
1.19 0.06 31 17.96
0.96 -0.27 20 22.36
1.14 -0.12 36 16.67
1.06 -0.1 16 25.00
1.25 -0.17 28 18.90
0.88 0.03 23 20.85 20.29
Negash, S., Greenwood, P. M., Sunderland, T., Parasuraman, R., Geda, Y. E.,
55
Knopman, D. S., … Smith, G. E. (2009). The influence of apolipoprotein e
genotype on visuospatial attention dissipates after age 80. Neuropsychology,
23(1), 81–89.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.carleton.ca/10.1037/a0014014
80 851 9.40
84 863 9.73
82 898 9.13
60 823 7.29
64 732 8.74
50 671 7.45
52 682 7.62
52 722 7.20
88 870 10.11
90 907 9.92
91 914 9.96
71 738 9.62
52 883 5.89
64 711 9.00
76 750 10.13
96 799 12.02
50 641 7.80
54 697 7.75
70 670 10.45
80 874 9.15
82 880 9.32
86 873 9.85
75 841 8.92
88 738 11.92
88 743 11.84
38 661 5.75
44 672 6.55
46 655 7.02
37 215 17.21
38 48 79.17
32 163 19.63
38 44 86.36
39 72 54.17
27 75 36.00
21 30 70.00
31 59 52.54
31 68 45.59
28 122 22.95
24 30 80.00
38 25 152.00 24.13
56
Reverte, I., Peris-Sampedro, F., Basaure, P., Campa, L., Suñol, C., Moreno, M., …
Colomina, M. T. (2016). Attentional performance, impulsivity, and related
neurotransmitter systems in apoE2, apoE3, and apoE4 female transgenic
mice. Psychopharmacology, 233(2), 295–308.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-015-4113-9
3.8 4.5 35 14.27
0.3 1.1 35 4.61
0.6 1.3 35 7.80
1.6 2.3 35 11.76
3 5.7 35 8.90
5 7.3 35 11.58
9.9 5.6 35 29.88
3.6 3.8 35 16.01
4.8 4.8 35 16.90
5 5.3 35 15.95
2.2 4.3 35 8.65

1.2 1.7 35 11.93
2.5 2.3 35 18.37
9.3 6.1 35 25.77
7.7 13.2 35 9.86
10.6 9.4 35 19.06
7.5 5 35 25.35
3 3.4 35 14.91
7.2 7.6 35 16.01
8.4 9.1 35 15.60
1.7 3.8 35 7.56

0.6 1.2 35 8.45
1.1 1.6 35 11.62
4.3 6.3 35 11.54
3.3 4.8 35 11.62
8.1 10.4 35 13.16
4.4 5 35 14.87
2.3 3.1 35 12.54
12.9 9.8 35 22.25
11.3 8.9 35 21.46 14.61
Greenwood, P. M., Sunderland, T., Friz, J. L., & Parasuraman, R. (2000). Genetics
and visual attention: Selective deficits in healthy adult carriers of the ɛ4 allele
of the apolipoprotein E gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 97(21), 11661–11666.
150 1390 10.79

145 1422 10.20
140 1387 10.09
158 1376 11.48
57
142 1400 10.14
138 1337 10.32
140 1369 10.23
137 1345 10.19
135 1340 10.07

140 1422 9.85
148 1446 10.24
135 1322 10.21
150 1423 10.54
130 1370 9.49
132 1289 10.24
135 1374 9.83
140 1370 10.22
140 1392 10.06

150 1471 10.20
32 1565 2.04
140 1362 10.28
150 1441 10.41
153 1503 10.18
142 1374 10.33
143 1402 10.20
149 1490 10.00
34 10 340.00
23 50 46.00
37 110 33.64
25 74 33.78
32 149 21.48
32 162 19.75
29 180 16.11
32 244 13.11
70 690 10.14
72 783 9.20
80 873 9.16
102 945 10.79
62 661 9.38
80 740 10.81
60 827 7.26
84 896 9.38
66 598 11.04
71 691 10.27
76 811 9.37
86 897 9.59 19.96
Evans, S., Dowell, N. G., Tabet, N., Tofts, P. S., King, S. L., Gray, M., & Rusted, J.
58
M. (2013). Nicotine effects on attentional reorienting in mid-age adults, and
interactions with apolipoprotein E status. Journal of Psychopharmacology,
27(11), 1007–1014. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881113499828
84 422 17 4.83
90 393 17 5.55
108 476 17 5.50
78 457 17 4.14
44 54 17 19.76
25 64 17 9.47
96 424 19 5.19
78 395 19 4.53
106 469 19 5.19
68 452 19 3.45
28 45 19 14.27
28 57 19 11.27 7.76
Rusted, J. M., Evans, S. L., King, S. L., Dowell, N., Tabet, N., & Tofts, P. S. (2013).
APOE e4 polymorphism in young adults is associated with improved
attention and indexed by distinct neural signatures. NeuroImage, 65, 364–373.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.010
46 494 21 2.03
50 358 21 3.05
58 387 21 3.27
102 526 20 4.34
72 329 20 4.89
67 371 20 4.04 3.60
Alfimova, M., Korovaitseva, G., Lezheiko, T., & Golimbet, V. (2014). Interaction
effects of the COMT and DRD4 genes with anxiety-related traits on selective
attention. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17, E44.
https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2014.46
57 104 25 10.96
70 120 59 7.59
47 118 10 12.60
61 116 30 9.60
78 119 18 15.45
58 109 51 7.45
51 84 7 22.95
49 105 18 11.00
64 106 25 12.08
46 94 59 6.37
37 88 10 13.30
46 107 30 7.85
39 91 18 10.10
45 96 51 6.56
64 117 7 20.67
59
42 89 18 11.12 11.60
Appendix B: Reduction Level Classification Survey
Which department do you most closely associated with
 Philosophy
 Psychology
 Cognitive Science
 Neuroscience
 Biology
1. Please read the following academic paper title and abstract:
Title: On making the right choice: the deliberation-without-attention effective
Abstract: Contrary to conventional wisdom, it is not always advantageous to engage in
thorough conscious deliberation before choosing. On the basis of recent insights into the
characteristics of conscious and unconscious thought, we tested the hypothesis that simple
choices (such as between different towels or different sets of oven mitts) indeed produce better
results after conscious thought, but that choices in complex matters (such as between different
houses or different cars) should be left to unconscious thought. Named the “deliberation
without-attention” hypothesis, it was confirmed in four studies on consumer choice, both in the
laboratory as well as among actual shoppers, that purchases of complex products were viewed
more favorably when decisions had been made in the absence of attentive deliberation.
Question: Which explanation type best fits the description of this title and abstract?
60
 Introspection level
 Psychological level
 Brain region level
 Cellular level
 Genetic level
Title: Attention During Adaptation Weakens Negative Afterimages.
Abstract: The effect of attention during adaptation on subsequent negative afterimages was
examined. One of 2 overlapped outline figures was attended during a 7–10-s adaptation period.
When the figures were readily perceptually segregated (on the basis of color or motion), the
subsequent afterimages were initially weaker for the previously attended figure. This effect was
confirmed by demonstrations that the onset of a single afterimage was delayed when an
afterimage inducer was attended during adaptation compared with when a central digit stream
or an overlapped (brightness-balanced) figure that did not generate an afterimage was attended.
The attention effect was further confirmed using a criterion-independent (dot-integration)
paradigm. The fact that selective attention during adaptation weakened or delayed afterimages
suggests that attention primarily facilitates the adaptation of polarity-independent processes that
modulate the visibility of afterimages rather than facilitating the adaptation of polarity-selective
processes that mediate the formation of afterimage On making the right choice: the
deliberation-without-attention effective
61
 Cellular level
 Genetic level
Title: Sustained attention, attentional selectivity, and attentional capacity across the lifespan
Abstract: Changes in sustained attention, attentional selectivity, and attentional capacity were
examined in a sample of 113 participants between the ages of 12 and 75. To measure sustained
attention, we employed the sustained-attention-to-response task (Robertson, Manly, Andrade,
Baddeley, & Yiend, Neuropsychologia 35:747–58, 1997), a short continuous-performance test
designed to capture fluctuations in sustained attention. To measure attentional selectivity and
capacity, we employed a paradigm based on the theory of visual attention (Bundesen,
Psychological Review 97:523–547, 1990), which enabled the estimation of parameters related
to attentional selection, perceptual threshold, visual short-term memory capacity, and
processing capacity. We found evidence of age-related decline in each of the measured
variables, but the declines varied markedly in terms of magnitude and lifespan trajectory.
Variables relating to attentional capacity showed declines of very large effect sizes, while
variables relating to attentional selectivity and sustained attention showed declines of medium
to large effect sizes, suggesting that attentional control is relatively preserved in older adults.
The variables relating to sustained attention followed a U-shaped, curvilinear trend, and the
variables relating to attentional selectivity and capacity showed linear decline from early
adulthood, providing further support for the differentiation of attentional functions
62
 Cellular level
 Genetic level
Title: Divided attention can enhance memory encoding: The attentional boost effect in implicit
memory
Abstract: Distraction during encoding has long been known to disrupt later memory
performance. Contrary to this long-standing result, we show that detecting an infrequent target
in a dual-task paradigm actually improves memory encoding for a concurrently presented word,
above and beyond the performance reached in the full-attention condition. This absolute
facilitation was obtained in 2 perceptual implicit tasks (lexical decision and word fragment
completion) but not in a conceptual implicit task (semantic classification). In the case of
recognition memory, the facilitation was relative, bringing accuracy in the divided attention
condition up to the level of accuracy in the full attention condition. The findings follow from
the hypothesis that the attentional boost effect reflects enhanced visual encoding of the study
stimulus consequent to the transient orienting response to the dual-task target
63
 Cellular level
 Genetic level
Title: Neural Mechanisms of Object-Based Attention
Abstract: How we attend to objects and their features that cannot be separated by location is
not understood. We presented two temporally and spatially overlapping streams of objects,
faces versus houses, and used magnetoencephalography and functional magnetic resonance
imaging to separate neuronal responses to attended and unattended objects. Attention to faces
versus houses enhanced the sensory responses in the fusiform face area (FFA) and
parahippocampal place area (PPA), respectively. The increases in sensory responses were
accompanied by induced gamma synchrony between the inferior frontal junction, IFJ, and either
FFA or PPA, depending on which object was attended. The IFJ appeared to be the driver of the
synchrony, as gamma phases were advanced by 20 ms in IFJ compared to FFA or PPA. Thus,
the IFJ may direct the flow of visual processing during object-based attention, at least in part
through coupled oscillations with specialized areas such as FFA and PPA.
64
 Cellular level
 Genetic level
Title: A physiological correlate of the ‘spotlight’ of visual attention
Abstract: Here we identify a neural correlate of the ability to precisely direct visual attention to
locations other than the center of gaze. Human subjects performed a task requiring shifts of
visual attention (but not of gaze) from one location to the next within a dense array of targets
and distracters while functional MRI was used to map corresponding displacements of neural
activation within visual cortex. The cortical topography of the purely attention-driven activity
precisely matched the topography of activity evoked by the cued targets when presented in
isolation. Such retinotopic mapping of attention-related activation was found in primary visual
cortex, as well as in dorsomedial and ventral occipital visual areas previously implicated in
processing the attended target features. These results identify a physiological basis for the
effects of spatially directed visual attention.
 Cellular level
 Genetic level
65
Title: Mirroring of attention by neurons in macaque parietal cortex
Abstract: Here we identify a neural correlate of the ability to precisely direct visual attention to
locations other than the center of gaze. Human subjects performed a task requiring shifts of
visual attention (but not of gaze) from one location to the next within a dense array of targets
and distracters while functional MRI was used to map corresponding displacements of neural
activation within visual cortex. The cortical topography of the purely attention-driven activity
precisely matched the topography of activity evoked by the cued targets when presented in
isolation. Such retinotopic mapping of attention-related activation was found in primary visual
cortex, as well as in dorsomedial and ventral occipital visual areas previously implicated in
processing the attended target features. These results identify a physiological basis for the
effects of spatially directed visual attention
 Cellular level
 Genetic level
Title: A unifying mechanistic model of selective attention in spiking neurons
Abstract: Visuospatial attention produces myriad effects on the activity and selectivity of
cortical neurons. Spiking neuron models capable of reproducing a wide variety of these effects
remain elusive. We present a model called the Attentional Routing Circuit (ARC) that provides
66
a mechanistic description of selective attentional processing in cortex. The model is described
mathematically and implemented at the level of individual spiking neurons, with the
computations for performing selective attentional processing being mapped to specific neuron
types and laminar circuitry. The model is used to simulate three studies of attention in macaque,
and is shown to quantitatively match several observed forms of attentional modulation.
Specifically, ARC demonstrates that with shifts of spatial attention, neurons may exhibit
shifting and shrinking of receptive fields; increases in responses without changes in selectivity
for non-spatial features (i.e. response gain), and; that the effect on contrast-response functions is
better explained as a response-gain effect than as contrast-gain. Unlike past models, ARC
embodies a single mechanism that unifies the above forms of attentional modulation, is
consistent with a wide array of available data, and makes several specific and quantifiable
predictions.
 Cellular level
 Genetic level
Title: Effect of Catechol-O-Methyltransferase val158met Genotype on Attentional Control
Abstract: The cingulate cortex is richly innervated by dopaminergic projections and plays a
critical role in attentional control (AC). Evidence indicates that dopamine enhances the
67
neurophysiological signal-to-noise ratio and that dopaminergic tone in the frontal cortex is
critically dependent on catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT). A functional polymorphism
(val158met) in the COMT gene accounts for some of the individual variability in executive
function mediated by the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. We explored the effect of this genetic
polymorphism on cingulate engagement during a novel AC task. We found that the COMT
val158met polymorphism also affects the function of the cingulate during AC. Individuals
homozygous for the high-activity valine (“val”) allele show greater activity and poorer
performance than val/methionine (“met”) heterozygotes, who in turn show greater activity and
poorer performance than individuals homozygous for the low-activity met allele, and these
effects are most evident at the highest demand for AC. These results indicate that met allele load
and presumably enhanced dopaminergic tone improve the “efficiency” of local circuit
processing within the cingulate cortex and thereby its function during AC.
 Cellular level
 Genetic level
Title: Mapping the genetic variation of executive attention onto brain activity
Abstract: Brain imaging data have repeatedly shown that the anterior cingulate cortex is an
important node in the brain network mediating conflict. We previously reported that
68
polymorphisms in dopamine receptor (DRD4) and monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) genes
showed significant associations with efficiency of handling conflict as measured by reaction
time differences in the Attention Network Test (ANT). To examine whether this genetic
variation might contribute to differences in brain activation within the anterior cingulate cortex,
we genotyped 16 subjects for the DRD4 and MAOA genes who had been scanned during the
ANT. In each of the two genes previously associated with more efficient handling of conflict in
reaction time experiments, we found a polymorphism in which persons with the allele
associated with better behavioral performance showed significantly more activation in the
anterior cingulate while performing the ANT than those with the allele associated with worse
performance. The results demonstrate how genetic differences among individuals can be linked
to individual differences in neuromodulators and in the efficiency of the operation of an
appropriate attentional network.
 Cellular level
 Genetic level
69

SaxManSteve Honous Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SaxManSteve Honous Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reductionism and Complexity Within Attentional Processes

mechanisms responsible for attentional processes? An important indicator of a successful experimental

complex systems demonstrate non-linear/chaotic patterns, showing relatively constant variability

overall coefficient of variation to determine whether measures of variability remained constant or

model to differentiate between non-linear and reductionist components of visual attention.

Keywords: Reductionism, attention, variability, complex systems, linear systems

1.1 History and Theories on Reductionism………………………………………………………4

Chapter 2: Conceptual Background for Experiment and Methodology………………………………….9

2.1 Empirical Investigation and Meta-Analysis………………………………………..………...9

2.2 Methodology for Reduction Level Classification Survey.....……………………………….10

2.3 Paper Selection Process for Meta-Analysis………………………………………………....11

2.4 Sample Paper from each Reduction Level.......................…………………………………..12

3.1 Reduction Level Classification Results…………………………………………………….15

3.2 Meta-Analysis Results……………………………………………………………………...16

4.1 Proposed Models of Reduction……………………………………………………………..19

4.2 Meta-Analysis Limitations………………………………………………………………….20

A. Raw Meta-Analysis Data……………………………………………………………………25

B. Reduction Level Classification Survey Questions. …………………………………………60

C. Informed consent form………………………………………………………………………70

Table 1. Number of Participants by Faculty in the Online Survey……………………………………..15

Table 2. Most frequently cited papers by academic journal…………………………………………….16

Figure 1. Average coefficient of variation for each level of reduction…………………………………18

1.1 History and Theories of Reductionism

material substances (res extensa) (Descartes, 1647).

of a variety of holistic human phenomenon. For example, Huntington’s disease, characterized by

genetic methodologies have been successful in reducing a complex psychological phenomenon to a

are simply lacking in scientific progress.

and the role variability has in relation to the system it inhabits.

which in turn provide a clearer description of the phenomenon at play.

affected social recognition memory.

In terms of non-linear systems, variability measurements have an inherently different meaning.

Instead of portraying a deficit in instrument precision or an unforeseen unaccounted variable,

level of reduction, as the levels of reduction are subject to constant variation.

(Lesne & Victor, 2006).

Chapter 2: Conceptual Background for Experiment and Methodology

2.1 Empirical investigation and meta-analysis

expected that variability remain relatively constant across levels of reduction.

To test such an hypothesis empirically, we have devised an interdisciplinary meta-analysis on a

described in section 2.2.

2.2 Methodology for Reduction Level Classification Survey

2.3 Paper Selection Process for Meta-Analysis

standardized across unit type.

one-way ANOVA using a p value of 0.05.

2.4 Sample Paper from each Reduction Level

from the Journal of Experimental psychology.

spatially directed visual attention.

having a better reductive understanding of the physiological basis of visual attention.

val158met polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene have on attentional

performed significantly better on attentional control tasks.

3.1 Reduction Level Classification Survey Results

A total of 27 participants completed the survey from a variety of departments, as demonstrated

Number of Participants by Faculty in the Online Survey

Departments Number of Participants

choosing genetic as the classification metric was 0.82, p = 0.01.

excluded from any significant findings.

3.2 Meta-Analysis Results

Most frequently cited papers by academic journal

Psychological Journal of 3 2.78 Cognition 2 3.634

Brain Region Journal of 4 2.887 Journal of 3 5.357

Cellular Neuron 4 13.974 Nature 2 17.839

Genetic Proceedings of 3 9.661 Neuropsychology 3 3.269

[Figure 1.; F(3,57) = 6.416, p = 0.001].

Average coefficient of variation for each level of reduction