2010
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009892
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

ERP Characterization of Sustained Attention Effects in Visual Lexical Categorization

Abstract: As our understanding of the basic processes underlying reading is growing, the key role played by attention in this process becomes evident. Two research topics are of particular interest in this domain: (1) it is still undetermined whether sustained attention affects lexical decision tasks; (2) the influence of attention on early visual processing (i.e., before orthographic or lexico-semantic processing stages) remains largely under-specified. Here we investigated early perceptual modulations by sustained att… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
0
11
1
Order By: Relevance
“…As is common in the literature, we analyzed this effect by looking at the mean amplitude in the time window between 380 and 800 ms after feedback onset, based on visual inspection of the grand average. To compare P300 components for positive and negative feedback, we performed analyses on three electrode clusters along the midline (based on methodology described in Martin et al, 2010 ) for which averages were computed over 5 electrodes each: fronto-central (F1, F2, FC1, FCz, FC2), parieto-central (C1, Cz, C2, CP1, CP2), and parieto-occipital (CPz, P1, Pz, P2, POz). A repeated measures ANOVA was performed on the mean amplitudes per cluster with feedback type (2 levels), round (3 levels), and region (3 levels) as factors.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As is common in the literature, we analyzed this effect by looking at the mean amplitude in the time window between 380 and 800 ms after feedback onset, based on visual inspection of the grand average. To compare P300 components for positive and negative feedback, we performed analyses on three electrode clusters along the midline (based on methodology described in Martin et al, 2010 ) for which averages were computed over 5 electrodes each: fronto-central (F1, F2, FC1, FCz, FC2), parieto-central (C1, Cz, C2, CP1, CP2), and parieto-occipital (CPz, P1, Pz, P2, POz). A repeated measures ANOVA was performed on the mean amplitudes per cluster with feedback type (2 levels), round (3 levels), and region (3 levels) as factors.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The influence of attention on perception was studied using event related potential (ERP) recordings [ 27 ] in electroencephalographic (EEG) or magnetoencephalographic (MEG) data by averaging over a large number of EEG (or MEG) traces associated with the perception of stimuli. The ERP approach was widely used for the analysis of visual attention, in particular, for studying selective attention of humans [ 28 ], including neural mechanisms of spatial selective attention [ 29 ], effects of mental fatigue on the attention [ 30 ], and effects of attention on visual lexical categorization [ 31 ]. According to Elmer [ 32 ], a specific brain response to a particular stimulus is too small to be distinguished in a single EEG.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The relationship between different scenarios would allow us to estimate the degree of alertness of the observer during visual perception and analyze the effect of motivation and task complexity, which would be impossible to do using approaches described in Refs. [ 55 – 59 ] or methods based on the event-related potentials (ERP) [ 28 31 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, neural representations of sensory inputs in early cortical areas are modulated by attention to accommodate task demands (e.g. Woods et al ., ; Martin et al ., ), and it is well known that the onset‐type N1 elicited by pitch onset is enhanced by attention (Hillyard et al ., ; Näätänen & Picton, ). Also regarding auditory change‐evoked responses, the P1–N1–P2 complex elicited by a formant shift in synthesized speech signal was enhanced by attention in a cochlear implant recipient (Martin, ), and an N1m‐like response to ‘auditory edges’ defined by changes in acoustic regularity was also enhanced by attention (Chait et al ., ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%