Do N1/MMN, P3a, and RON form a strongly coupled chain reflecting the three stages of auditory distraction?

Horváth, János; Winkler, István; Bendixen, Alexandra

doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.04.001

Cited by 230 publications

(213 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

195

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the present study strongly constrain this notion because the offset-related N1 peak that should have been elicited by the short deviant was abolished by the time the P3a was elicited. This means that the task-relevant attention set (which would be reflected by an offset-related ERP) was already disrupted before the P3a was elicited, which implies that the process reflected by P3a does not drive the initial attention change, that is, P3a does not reflect involuntary attention change (see also Barcelo, Escera, Corral & Periáñez, 2006;Horváth, Winkler, Bendixen, 2008; for a recent summary, see Wetzel et al, in press). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of these studies relied on variations of the oddball paradigm and the registration of event-related brain potentials (ERPs). Their results delineated a three-stage model describing the unfolding of distraction-related processing (Escera & Corral, 2003;Escera, Alho, Schröger, Winkler, 2000;Horváth, Winkler, Bendixen, 2008). The first stage is a sensory filter, which highlights informative (distracting) sensory events.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sensory ERP effects in auditory distraction: did we miss the main event?

Horváth

2013

Psychological Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Event-related potentials (ERPs) offer unique insights into processes related to involuntary attention changes triggered by rare, unpredictably occurring sensory events, that is, distraction. Contrasting ERPs elicited by distracters and frequent standard stimuli in oddball paradigms allowed the formulation of a three-stage model describing distractionrelated processing: First, the distracting event is highlighted by a sensory filter. Second, attention is oriented towards the event, and finally, the the task-optimal attention set is restored, or task priorities are changed. Although this model summarizes how distracting stimulus information is processed, not much is known about the cost of taking this exceptional route of processing. The present study demonstrates the impact of distraction on sensory processing. Participants performed a Go/NoGo tone-duration discrimination task, with infrequent pitch distracters. In the two parts of the experiment the duration-response mapping was reversed. Contrasts of distracter and standard ERPs revealed higher P3a-and reorienting negativity amplitudes for short than for long tones, independently from response type. To understand the cause of these asymmetries, short vs. long ERP contrasts were calculated. The ERP pattern showed that short standards elicited an attention-dependent offset-response, which was abolished for short distracters. That is, the apparent P3a-and RON enhancements were caused by the removal of a task-related attentional sensory enhancement. This shows that the disruption of task-optimal attention set precedes the elicitation of the P3a, which suggests that P3a does not reflect a process driving the initial distraction-related attention change.3

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Sensory ERP effects in auditory distraction: did we miss the main event?

Horváth

2013

Psychological Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore we included deviants preceded exactly by 4, 5, 7 or 8 standards as well. It is well-known that deviance-related processing activity is stronger when the deviant follows a longer regular stimulus sequence (Bendixen et al, 2007;Horváth et al, 2008;Sams et al, 1983;Winkler et al, 1996). Furthermore it is plausible that the activity-increase in deviance-related processing brought about by adding further stimuli to the preceding regular sequence decreases with each addition: For example, the activity increase when a deviant is preceded by 5 instead 4 standards is larger, or at least not smaller, in comparison to when it is preceded by 6 instead of 5.…”

Section: Materials and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge of sequence structure prevents auditory distraction: An ERP study

Volosin¹,

Horváth²

2014

International Journal of Psychophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infrequent, salient stimuli often capture attention despite their task-irrelevancy, and disrupt on-going goal-directed behavior. A number of studies show that presenting cues signaling forthcoming deviants reduces distraction, which may be a "by-product" of cue-processing interference or the result of direct preparatory processes for the forthcoming distracter. In the present study, instead of "bursts" of cue information, information on the temporal structure of the stimulus sequence was provided. Young adults performed a spatial discrimination task where complex tones moving left or right were presented. In the predictable condition, every 7 th tone was a pitch-deviant, while in the random condition the position of deviants was random with a probability of 1/7. Whereas the early event-related potential correlates of deviance-processing (N1, and MMN) were unaffected by predictability, P3a amplitude was significantly reduced in the predictable condition, indicating that prevention of distraction was based on the knowledge about the temporal structure of the stimulus sequence.

show abstract

“…Deviance processing is classic in event-related potential (ERP) research. Different stages of deviance processing are reflected in early responses associated with sensory processing and progressively later responses associated with cognitive operations [25,26]. Critically, deviance processing makes it possible to test the interaction of formal and temporal structure by varying formal stimulus properties (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cerebellum, temporal predictability and the updating of a mental model

Kotz

Stockert

Schwartze

2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We live in a dynamic and changing environment, which necessitates that we adapt to and efficiently respond to changes of stimulus form ('what') and stimulus occurrence ('when'). Consequently, behaviour is optimal when we can anticipate both the 'what' and 'when' dimensions of a stimulus. For example, to perceive a temporally expected stimulus, a listener needs to establish a fairly precise internal representation of its external temporal structure, a function ascribed to classical sensorimotor areas such as the cerebellum. Here we investigated how patients with cerebellar lesions and healthy matched controls exploit temporal regularity during auditory deviance processing. We expected modulations of the N2b and P3b components of the event-related potential in response to deviant tones, and also a stronger P3b response when deviant tones are embedded in temporally regular compared to irregular tone sequences. We further tested to what degree structural damage to the cerebellar temporal processing system affects the N2b and P3b responses associated with voluntary attention to change detection and the predictive adaptation of a mental model of the environment, respectively. Results revealed that healthy controls and cerebellar patients display an increased N2b response to deviant tones independent of temporal context. However, while healthy controls showed the expected enhanced P3b response to deviant tones in temporally regular sequences, the P3b response in cerebellar patients was significantly smaller in these sequences. The current data provide evidence that structural damage to the cerebellum affects the predictive adaptation to the temporal structure of events and the updating of a mental model of the environment under voluntary attention.

show abstract

Do N1/MMN, P3a, and RON form a strongly coupled chain reflecting the three stages of auditory distraction?

Cited by 230 publications

References 45 publications

Sensory ERP effects in auditory distraction: did we miss the main event?

Sensory ERP effects in auditory distraction: did we miss the main event?

Knowledge of sequence structure prevents auditory distraction: An ERP study

Cerebellum, temporal predictability and the updating of a mental model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About