This vertical shift of the contrast-discrimination

functions was reflected in smooth function fits to the data (Figure 3, solid curves; see Experimental Procedures: Psychophysical Contrast-Discrimination Functions) in which the parameter controlling vertical offset increased significantly for the distributed cue compared to the focal cue trials (gr, p = 0.02, Student’s t test across observers), but other parameters did not change (gc, p = 0.58; s, p = 0.17; q, p = 0.4, Student’s t test). Enhanced contrast discrimination could not be attributed to any change in eye position between focal and distributed cue trials (see Experimental Procedures: Eye Position Monitoring). Contrast-response functions were measured, in each of several MDV3100 visual cortical areas, for each of four

stimulus cue combinations (Figure 4): focal cue target, focal cue nontarget, distributed cue target, and distributed cue nontarget. fMRI responses increased monotonically with stimulus contrast (Figures 4A and 4B, representative observer), and depended on the stimulus cue combination (Figures 4B and 4C, representative observer and average, respectively). Response amplitudes were smallest for unattended stimuli (Figure 4C, green, focal cue nontarget), larger when attention was distributed http://www.selleckchem.com/screening/anti-cancer-compound-library.html (purple, distributed cue nontarget; blue, distributed cue target), and largest for attended targets (red, focal cue target). There was no evidence for response enhancement in any of the visual cortical areas. We fit the data by adopting a parametric equation for the contrast-response

functions (see Experimental Procedures: fMRI Contrast-Response Functions). Only one of the fitted parameter values differed significantly across the four stimulus cue combinations: the baseline response (b) that determined the vertical positions of the contrast-response functions. Allowing only this parameter to vary across cue conditions provided a fit that was statistically indistinguishable from the fit allowing next all parameters (gc, gr, and b) to vary across cue conditions (V1, V2, V3, and hV4 each F(14,8), p = 0.3). Thus, we did not observe a change in gain or slope of the contrast-response functions, consistent with previous reports ( Figure 1B; Buracas and Boynton, 2007 and Murray, 2008). Instead, the cue effect was well described as a vertical additive shift of the contrast-response functions. The amount of additive offset increased across the hierarchy of visual cortical areas. Values for b increased from the focal cue nontarget curve to the distributed cue nontarget curve by 0.04, 0.08, 0.14, and 0.25 (percent [%] fMRI signal change) in visual areas V1, V2, V3, and hV4, respectively. The values increased from focal cue nontarget to distributed cue nontarget by 0.11, 0.18, 0.27 and 0.34, and they increased from focal cue nontarget to focal cue target by 0.29, 0.39, 0.52, and 0.51.