Backward masking and visual mismatch negativity: Electrophysiological evidence for memory‐based detection of deviant stimuli

Czigler, István; Weisz, Júlia; Winkler, István

doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00530.x

Cited by 40 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These differential ERPs resembled in their latency, scalp topography, and stimulus and attentive conditions the visual analog of the mismatch negativity (MMN) of ERPs (Pazo-Alvarez et al, 2003; Czigler, 2007). For assessing response amplitudes, a time window of 200–260 ms (for vMMN, see e.g., Astikainen et al, 2008; Pazo-Alvarez et al, 2003; for change blindness studies, see Fernandez-Duque et al, 2003; Schankin and Wascher, 2007, 2008; Kimura et al, 2008) was selected for which mean values from each electrode were extracted.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Positive differential ERPs have been reported accompanying vMMN in a number of studies (see Czigler, 2007 for a review). However, a similar ANOVA for the frontal electrode sites (F3, F4, Fz, FC1, FC2, Cz) as for the posterior electrode sites did not reveal any significant change-related amplitude differences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To this end, we investigated whether explicit detection of visual changes, as indexed by voluntary behavioral responses to them, can only develop when implicit detection of these changes, as reflected by the visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) of event-related potentials (ERPs) of the brain (for a review, see Pazo-Alvarez et al, 2003; Czigler, 2007; Kimura et al, 2011), also takes place. vMMN is a neurophysiological index of pre-attentive detection of visual changes on the basis of visual sensory memory (e.g., Astikainen et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Its implicit nature is, in turn, reflected by no need to be declaratively aware of the changes. vMMN is elicited at the posterior electrode sites at around 150–300 ms following change (e.g., Czigler, 2007). Although explicit detection of visual changes is relatively insensitive to the duration of the blank interval separating the changed and unchanged images (Rensink et al, 2000), vMMN, in contrast, is known to diminish when ISI is prolonged (Astikainen et al, 2008), reflecting most probably the time span of visual sensory memory (Sperling, 1960).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Explicit behavioral detection of visual changes develops without their implicit neurophysiological detectability

Lyyra¹,

Wikgren²,

Ruusuvirta³

et al. 2012

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Change blindness is a failure of reporting major changes across consecutive images if separated, e.g., by a brief blank interval. Successful change detection across interrupts requires focal attention to the changes. However, findings of implicit detection of visual changes during change blindness have raised the question of whether the implicit mode is necessary for development of the explicit mode. To this end, we recorded the visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) of the event-related potentials (ERPs) of the brain, an index of implicit pre-attentive visual change detection, in adult humans performing an oddball-variant of change blindness flicker task. Images of 500 ms in duration were presented repeatedly in continuous sequences, alternating with a blank interval (either 100 ms or 500 ms in duration throughout a stimulus sequence). Occasionally (P = 0.2), a change (referring to color changes, omissions, or additions of objects or their parts in the image) was present. The participants attempted to explicitly (via voluntary button press) detect the occasional change. With both interval durations, it took 10–15 change presentations in average for the participants to eventually detect the changes explicitly in a sequence, the 500 ms interval only requiring a slightly longer exposure to the series than the 100 ms one. Nevertheless, prior to this point of explicit detectability, the implicit detection of the changes vMMN could only be observed with the 100 ms intervals. These findings of explicit change detection developing with and without implicit change detection may suggest that the two modes of change detection recruit independent neural mechanisms.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Explicit behavioral detection of visual changes develops without their implicit neurophysiological detectability

Lyyra¹,

Wikgren²,

Ruusuvirta³

et al. 2012

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Genuine MMN reflects a biologically important mechanism for the detection of irregularities in the environment (Czigler et al, 2007). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual mismatch negativity in the dorsal stream is independent of concurrent visual task difficulty

Kremláček

Kuba

Kubová

et al. 2013

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The manipulation of attention can produce mismatch negativity-like components that are not necessarily connected to the unintentional sensory registration of the violation of probability-based regularity. For clinical purposes, attentional bias should be quantified because it can vary substantially among subjects and can decrease the specificity of the examination. This experiment targets the role of attention in the generation of visual mismatch negativity (vMMN). The visual regularity was generated by a sequence of two radial motions while subjects focused on visual tasks in the central part of the display. Attentional load was systematically varied and had three levels, no-load, easy, and difficult. Rare, deviant, and frequent standard motions were presented with a 10/60 ratio in oddball sequences. Data from 12 subjects was recorded from 64 channels and processed. vMMN was identified within the interval of 142–198 ms. The mean amplitude was evaluated during the aforementioned interval in the parietal and fronto-central regions. A general linear model for repeated measures was applied to the mean amplitude with a three-factor design and showed a significant difference [F(1, 11) = 17.40, p = 0.002] between standard and deviant stimuli and between regions [F(1, 11) = 8.40, p = 0.01]; however, no significant effect of the task [F(2, 22) = 1.26, p = 0.30] was observed. The unintentional detection of irregularity during the processing of the visual motion was independent of the attentional load associated with handling the central visual task. The experiment did not demonstrate an effect of attentional load manipulation on mismatch negativity (MMN) induced by the motion-sequence, which supports the clinical utility of this examination. However, used stimulation paradigm should be further optimized to generate mismatch negativity that is stable enough to be usable not only for group comparisons but also for a single subject assessment.

show abstract

Can illusory deviant stimuli be used as attentional distractors to record vMMN in a passive three stimulus oddball paradigm?

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A passive three stimulus oddball paradigm was used to investigate Visual Mismatch Negativity (vMMN) a component of the Event Related Potential (ERP) believed to represent a central pre-attentive change mechanism. Responses to a change in orientation were recorded to monochrome stimuli presented to subjects on a computer screen. One of the infrequent stimuli formed an illusory figure (Kanizsa Square) aimed to capture spatial attention in the absence of an active task. Nineteen electrodes (10-20 system) were used to record the electroencephalogram in fourteen subjects (ten females) mean age 34.5 years. ERPs to all stimuli consisted of a positive negative positive complex recorded maximally over lateral occipital areas. The negative component was greater for deviant and illusory deviant compared to standard stimuli in a time window of 170-190 ms. A P3a component over frontal/central electrodes to the illusory deviant but not to the deviant stimulus suggests the illusory figure was able to capture attention and orientate subjects to the recording. Subtraction waveforms revealed visual discrimination responses at occipital electrodes, which may represent vMMN. In a control study with 13 subjects (11 females; mean age 29.23 years), using an embedded active attention task, we confirmed the existence of an earlier (150-170 ms) and attenuated vMMN. Recordings from an intracranial case study confirmed separation of N1 and discrimination components to posterior and anterior occipital areas, respectively. We conclude that although the illusory figure captured spatial attention in its own right it did not draw sufficient attentional resources from the standard-deviant comparison as revealed when using a concurrent active task.

show abstract

Backward masking and visual mismatch negativity: Electrophysiological evidence for memory‐based detection of deviant stimuli

Cited by 40 publications

References 51 publications

Explicit behavioral detection of visual changes develops without their implicit neurophysiological detectability

Explicit behavioral detection of visual changes develops without their implicit neurophysiological detectability

Visual mismatch negativity in the dorsal stream is independent of concurrent visual task difficulty

Can illusory deviant stimuli be used as attentional distractors to record vMMN in a passive three stimulus oddball paradigm?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About