A detailed RG7204 mw comparison of location specificity in different reference frames also revealed an interconnection between spatiotopic and retinotopic processing mechanisms. After training under the congruent condition (filled bar in the left panel of Fig. 2B), when both the retinotopic

and spatiotopic locations of the second stimulus were changed to the untrained condition (empty bar in the right panel of Fig. 2B), the subjects’ mean threshold was increased by 1.72° ± 0.68°. When only the stimulated retinal location was changed (filled bar in the right panel of Fig. 2B), the threshold increase attributable to retinotopic specificity alone was 1.67° ± 0.52°; when only the spatiotopic stimulus relation was changed (empty bar in the left panel of Fig. 2B), the threshold increase attributable

to spatiotopic specificity alone was 1.54° ± 0.31°. Comparing these values of threshold elevation, we see that retinotopic and spatiotopic specificity, respectively, account for 96.7 and 89.1% of the location specificity caused by changing stimulus location find more in both coordinates, indicating a strong interdependence between the spatiotopic and retinotopic mechanisms. The dependence of learning-induced spatiotopic preference on the trained retinal location and on the trained stimulus orientation suggests that the spatiotopic representation could be implemented on a retinotopic map. Experiment II showed the dependence of the spatiotopic learning effect on the retinotopic representation, raising an interesting question: how is visual processing and learning in these two different frames of reference interconnected? As mentioned in the Introduction, three possible neural mechanisms could contribute to spatiotopic representation. It is difficult to account for the spatiotopic learning effect that we observed by the first two mechanisms, namely, the spatiotopic map and peri-saccadic updating of visual representation (see ‘Discussion’). Here,

we examined the role of attentional remapping associated with gaze shift by manipulating the subjects’ attention to the first stimulus, with reference to which the spatiotopic location of the second stimulus was established and attention was remapped. In Experiment III, we randomized the orientation of individual lines in the first stimulus while keeping Farnesyltransferase the other stimulus settings the same as those used in Experiment I. This manipulation rendered the first stimulus irrelevant to the orientation discrimination task that was performed on the second stimulus alone, and would therefore reduce the attention allocated to it. In order that some degree of voluntary attention be still allocated to the first stimulus during training, the subjects were required to report, at the end of a trial, whether or not the randomly oriented lines in the first stimulus were iso-luminant before judging the orientation of the second stimulus (Fig.