A Dilemma for ‘Selection-for-Action’

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-149
Author(s):  
Denis Buehler
Keyword(s):  
Selection For ◽  
Selection For Action

The neural basis of selection-for-action

2007 ◽  
Vol 417 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidi Chapman ◽  
Andrea C. Pierno ◽  
Ross Cunnington ◽  
Maria Gavrilescu ◽  
Gary Egan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neural Basis ◽  
Selection For ◽  
Selection For Action

Selection for action and selection for awareness: Evidence from hemispatial neglect

2006 ◽  
Vol 1080 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Rafal ◽  
Robert Ward ◽  
Shai Danziger
Keyword(s):  
Hemispatial Neglect ◽  
Selection For ◽  
Selection For Action

scholarly journals Action-based attention in Drosophila melanogaster

2019 ◽  
Vol 121 (6) ◽  
pp. 2428-2432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Frighetto ◽  
Mauro A. Zordan ◽  
Umberto Castiello ◽  
Aram Megighian
Keyword(s):  
Drosophila Melanogaster ◽  
Visual Target ◽  
Motor Program ◽  
Action Selection ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Fundamental Process ◽  
Directed Action ◽  
Selection For ◽  
First Time ◽  
Selection For Action

The mechanism of action selection is a widely shared fundamental process required by animals to interact with the environment and adapt to it. A key step in this process is the filtering of the “distracting” sensory inputs that may disturb action selection. Because it has been suggested that, in principle, action selection may also be processed by shared circuits in vertebrate and invertebrates, we wondered whether invertebrates show the ability to filter out “distracting” stimuli during a goal-directed action, as seen in vertebrates. In this experiment, action selection was studied in wild-type Drosophila melanogaster by investigating their reaction to the abrupt appearance of a visual distractor during an ongoing locomotor action directed to a visual target. We found that when the distractor was present, flies tended to shift the original trajectory toward it, thus acknowledging its presence, but they did not fully commit to it, suggesting that an inhibition process took place to continue the unfolding of the planned goal-directed action. To some extent flies appeared to take into account and represent motorically the distractor, but they did not engage in a complete change of their initial motor program in favor of the distractor. These results provide interesting insights into the selection-for-action mechanism, in a context requiring action-centered attention, that might have appeared rather early in the course of evolution. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Action selection and maintenance of a goal-directed action require animals to ignore irrelevant “distracting” stimuli that might elicit alternative motor programs. In this study we observed, in Drosophila melanogaster, a top-down mechanism inhibiting the response toward salient stimuli, to accomplish a goal-directed action. These data highlight, for the first time in an invertebrate organism, that the action-based attention shown by higher organisms, such as humans and nonhuman primates, might have an ancestral origin.

How can selection-for-perception be decoupled from selection-for-action?

2003 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 478-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cécile Beauvillain ◽  
Pierre Pouget
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movement ◽  
Movement Control ◽  
Saccade Target ◽  
Eye Movement Control ◽  
Tightly Coupled ◽  
Selection For ◽  
Selection For Action

Evidence is presented for the notion that selection-for-perception and selection-for-action progress in parallel to become tightly coupled at the saccade target before the execution of the movement. Such a conception might be incorporated in the E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document