It is well documented that the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) are intensively involved in conflict control. However, it remains unclear how these ‘‘executive’’ brain regions will act when the conflict control process interacts with spatial attentional orienting. In the classical spatial cueing paradigm [Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X (pp. 531–556). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum], response to a target is delayed when it appears at the cued location compared with at the uncued location, if the time interval between the cue and the target is greater than 300 msec. This effect of inhibition of return (IOR) can alter the resolution of Stroop conflict such that the Stroop interference effect disappears at the cued (inhibited) location [Vivas, A. B., & Fuentes, L. J. Stroop interference is affected in inhibition of return. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 315–323, 2001]. In this event-related functional magnetic resonance study, we investigate the differential neural mechanisms underlying interactions between preresponse interference, response interference, and spatial orienting. Two types of Stroop words [incongruent responseeligible words (IE), incongruent response-ineligible words (II)] and neutral words were presented either at the cued or uncued location. The significant pre-response interference at the uncued location activated the left rostral ACC as compared with at the cued location. Moreover, although the IE words which have conflicts at both pre-response and response levels did not cause significant behavioral interference at the cued location, they activated the left DLPFC as compared with at the uncued location. Furthermore, neutral words showed significant IOR effects behaviorally, and they activated the left frontal eye field (FEF) at the uncued location relative to the cued location. These results suggest that the left rostral ACC is involved in the interaction between pre-response conflict and IOR, whereas the left DLPFC is involved in the interaction between response conflict and IOR. Moreover, the FEF is involved in shifting attentional focus to novel locations during spatial search.

Using a cue–target paradigm, this study investigated the interaction between location and frequency information processing in human auditory inhibition of return (IOR). The cue and the target varied in terms of location and frequency and participants were asked to perform a target detection, localization or frequency discrimination task. Results showed that, when neither location nor frequency of auditory stimuli was particularly relevant to the target detection task, there was a location-based IOR only if the cue and the target were identical in frequency and there was a frequencybased IOR only if the cue and the target were presented at the same location. When a particular feature of auditory stimuli, whether location or frequency, was directly relevant to the current task, the IOR effect was evident for this feature only if the cue and the target differed on the task-irrelevant feature, while the IOR effect was eliminated for the task-relevant feature when the cue and the target had the same task-irrelevant feature. Similarly, the IOR effect based on the task-irrelevant feature was evident when the cue and the target differed on the task-relevant feature, and was eliminated or reversed when the cue and the target shared the task-relevant feature. Theoretical implications of these Wndings for auditory IOR are discussed.

Feedback-related negativity is a negative deflection in brain potentials associated with feedback indicating monetary losses or response errors. Feedback-related negativity is studied primarily in paradigms in which participants experience negative outcomes that appear to be contingent upon their previous choices. This study investigated whether feedback-related negativity can be elicited by a randomly assigned cue indicating potential monetary loss. The expected loss or win can be materialized or averted depending on participants’ performance in a subsequent game. Compared with the win cue, the loss cue elicited a weak but significant feedback-related negativity-like effect. It is suggested that the anterior cingulate cortex, which generates feedback-related negativity, may function as a pre-warning system that alerts the brain to get ready for future events. NeuroReport 17: 1649-1653 © 2006 Lippincott Williams &Wilkins.

Congenitally blind adults’ performance in spatial and nonspatial peripheral auditory attention tasks was compared with that of sighted adults in a paradigm manipulating location-based and frequency-based inhibition of return concurrently. Blind study participants responded faster in spatial attention tasks (detection/localization) and slower in the nonspatial frequency discrimination task than sighted participants. Both groups, however, showed the same patterns of interaction between location-based and frequency-based inhibition of return. These results suggest that early vision deprivation enhances the function of the posterior-dorsal auditory ‘where’ pathway but impairs the function of the anterior-ventral ‘what’ pathway during peripheral auditory attention. The altered processing speed in the blind, however, is not accompanied by alteration in attentional orienting mechanisms that may be localized to higher cortices. NeuroReport 17: 1449-1452 © 2006 LippincottWilliams &Wilkins.

Using the spatial cueing technique, this study demonstrates that the center of mass (centroid) of a visual scene has a special ability to attract attention evenwhen there is no object presented at this location. Four boxes formed an imaginary square presented to the left or right hemifield. After the cueing in one box, a target appeared in one of the four boxes and, in addition, at centroid. Fastest reaction times were observed at centroid, irrespective of whether this centroid was also occupied by a box. Reaction times at the uncued locations varied according to their relative positions to centroid and fixation. No inhibition of return effect was observed when the cue was at centroid. NeuroReport 00:000-000