Sestieri et al. (2010) compared a perceptual attention task in which participants
looked for specific targets in a video (e.g., “Can you detect a man standing on the street wearing red pants?”) and responded “yes” or “no,” with a reflective attention task in which they responded “yes” or “no” to recognition test items about videos seen previously (“Richard mentioned his problem with alcohol before his intimacy problem”). For the perceptual task they found activity in SPL and posterior IPS, regions commonly found in perceptual attention tasks. For the memory task, they found areas of AG, SMG, lateral IPS, and medial areas (PCu, PCC, RSC). These findings suggest a dissociation of regions engaged during perceptual and reflective attention. However, this study did not equate items MDV3100 across perceptual and reflective conditions. Furthermore, as noted by Sestieri et al., the memory retrieval task likely involved an “ensemble of processes” (p. 8453) and thus was not
designed to contrast specific component processes of perceptual and/or reflective attention. Functional connectivity analyses help to segregate functionally different networks (Fox et al., 2006, Corbetta et al., 2008 and Chadick and Gazzaley, 2011). PRAM predicts different patterns of connectivity between representational areas and frontal and/or parietal cortex for perceptual versus reflective tasks. Also, the timing of activity between frontal and parietal control mechanisms Cyclopamine may yield differences between perceptual and reflective attention. For example, frontal activity occurs before parietal activity during top-down perceptual attention, while parietal activity precedes frontal activity during bottom-up perceptual attention (e.g., Buschman and Miller, 2007). It would be useful to see whether such findings extend to reflective attention tasks. Dissociations between patterns of enhancement and suppression also show differences between perceptual Methisazone and reflective
attention. During encoding of multiple items presented in a sequence, older adults showed intact enhancement but disrupted suppression effects relative to young adults, suggesting that enhancement and suppression are dissociable processes (Gazzaley et al., 2005). Although it provided evidence regarding overall enhancement and suppression effects during encoding, the design of the Gazzaley et al. study did not separately assess effects of perceptual and reflective attention. Evidence that perceptual and reflective attention are also dissociable comes from a study finding that older adults showed disrupted suppression during refreshing, but not during perceptual attention, while enhancement effects in both perceptual and reflective attention were preserved (Mitchell et al., 2010).