Research shows that the visual system monitors the environment for changes. For example, a left‐tilted bar, a deviant, that appears after several presentations of a right‐tilted bar, standards, elicits a classic visual mismatch negativity (vMMN): greater negativity for deviants than standards in event‐related potentials (ERPs) between 100 and 300 ms after onset of the deviant. The classic vMMN is contributed to by adaptation; it can be distinguished from the genuine vMMN that, through use of control conditions, compares standards and deviants that are equally adapted and physically identical. To determine whether the vMMN follows similar principles to the auditory mismatch negativity (MMN), in two experiments we searched for a genuine vMMN from simple, physiologically plausible stimuli that change in fundamental dimensions: orientation, contrast, phase, and spatial frequency. We carefully controlled for attention and eye movements. We found no evidence for the genuine vMMN, despite adequate statistical power. We conclude that either the genuine vMMN is a rather unstable phenomenon that depends on still‐to‐be‐identified experimental parameters, or it is confined to visual stimuli for which monitoring across time is more natural than monitoring over space, such as for high‐level features. We also observed an early deviant‐related positivity that we propose might reflect earlier predictive processing.

Prediction error is a basic component of predictive-coding theory of brain processing. According to the theory, each stage of brain processing of sensory information generates a model of the current sensory input; subsequent input is compared against the model and only if there is a mismatch, a prediction error, is further processing performed. Recently, Smout and colleagues found that a signature of prediction error, the visual (v) mismatch negativity (MMN), for a fundamental property of visual input—its orientation—was absent without endogenous attention on the stimuli. This is remarkable because the weight of evidence for MMNs from audition and vision is that they occur without endogenous attention. To resolve this discrepancy, we conducted an experiment addressing 2 alternative explanations for Smout and colleagues’ finding: that it was from a lack of reproducibility or that participants’ visual systems did not encode the stimuli when attention was on something else. We conducted a similar experiment to that of Smout and colleagues. We showed 21 participants sequences of identically oriented Gabor patches, standards, and, unpredictably, otherwise identical, Gabor patches differing in orientation by ±15°, ±30°, and ±60°, deviants. To test whether participants encoded the orientation of the standards, we varied the number of standards preceding a deviant, allowing us to search for a decrease in activity with the number of repetitions of standards—repetition suppression. We diverted participants’ attention from the oriented stimuli with a central, letter-detection task. We reproduced Smout and colleagues’ finding of no vMMN without endogenous attention, strengthening their finding. We found that our participants showed repetition suppression: They did encode the stimuli preattentively. We also found early processing of deviants. We discuss various explanations why the earlier processing did not extend into the vMMN time window, including low precision of prediction.

Prediction error is a basic component of predictive-coding theory of brain processing. According to the theory, each stage of brain processing of sensory information generates a model of the current sensory input; subsequent input is compared against the model and only if there is a mismatch, a prediction error, is further processing performed. Recently, Smout et al. found that a signature of prediction error, the visual (v) mismatch negativity (MMN), for a fundamental property of visual input—its orientation—was absent without attention on the stimuli. This is remarkable because the weight of evidence for MMNs from audition and vision is that they occur without attention. To resolve this discrepancy, we conducted an experiment addressing two alternative explanations for Smout et al.'s finding: that it was from a lack of reproducibility or that participants' visual systems did not encode the stimuli when attention was on something else. We conducted a similar experiment to Smout et al.'s. We showed 21 participants sequences of identically oriented Gabor patches, standards, and, unpredictably, otherwise identical, Gabor patches differing in orientation by ±15°, ±30°, and ±60°, deviants. To test whether participants encoded the orientation of the standards, we varied the numbers of standards preceding a deviant, allowing us to search for a decrease in activity with the number of repetitions of standards—repetition suppression. We diverted participants' attention from the oriented stimuli with a central, letter-detection task. We reproduced Smout et al.'s finding of no vMMN without attention, strengthening their finding. We also found that our participants showed repetition suppression: they did encode the stimuli pre-attentively. We also found early processing of deviants. We discuss whether this earlier processing of deviants may be why no further processing, in the vMMN time window, occurs.