Infant attention and visual preferences: Converging evidence from behavior, event-related potentials, and cortical source localization.

Abstract

In this study, we had 3 major goals. The 1st goal was to establish a link between behavioral and event-related potential (ERP) measures of infant attention and recognition memory. To assess the distribution of infant visual preferences throughout ERP testing, we designed a new experimental procedure that embeds a behavioral measure (paired comparison trials) in the modified-oddball ERP procedure. The 2nd goal was to measure infant ERPs during the paired comparison trials. Independent component analysis (ICA) was used to identify and to remove eye-movement components from the electroencephalographic data, thus allowing for the analysis of ERP components during paired comparison trials. The 3rd goal was to localize the cortical sources of infant visual preferences. Equivalent current dipole analysis was performed on the ICA components related to experimental events. Infants who demonstrated novelty preferences in paired comparison trials demonstrated greater amplitude Negative central ERP components across tasks than infants who did not demonstrate novelty preferences. Visual preference also interacted with attention and stimulus type. The cortical sources of infant visual preferences were localized to inferior and superior prefrontal cortex and to the anterior cingulate cortex.

Effects of interstimulus intervals on behavioral, heart rate, and event‐related potential indices of infant engagement and sustained attention

“…For example, the negative central (Nc) component is a large negative deflection in the ERP prominent at frontal-central scalp regions occurring about 350 to 750 ms after a briefly presented visual stimulus (Courchesne, Ganz, & Norcia, 1981; Goldman, Shapiro, & Nelson, 2004). The amplitude of the Nc component has been found to be larger during sustained attention than during inattention (Guy, Zieber, & Richards, in press; Reynolds, Courage, & Richards, 2010; Reynolds & Richards, 2005; Richards, 2003). …”

Processing and rejection of novel items in childhood: Event‐related potential study of similar lures and novel foils

“…Some studies report that novel stimuli elicit a larger negative amplitude Nc response than familiar stimuli (Carver et al, 2003; Czernochowski, Mecklinger, & Johansson, 2009; Dawson, Carver, Meltzoff, Panagiodies, McPartland, & Webb, 2002; Riggins, Rollins, & Graham, 2013), whereas other studies report that familiar stimuli elicit a larger negative amplitude Nc response than novel stimuli (de Haan & Nelson, 1997; 1999; Marshall, Drummey, Fox, & Newcombe, 2002; Riggins, Miller, Bauer, Georgieff, & Nelson, 2009). Due to these inconsistencies, Richards and Reynolds (2005) hypothesized that Nc amplitude “may be greater to the stimulus that elicits the greatest attentional response regardless of novelty versus familiarity or frequency of presentation (p. 612).” A recent study that assessed how visual preference, attention, and stimulus novelty influenced the Nc amplitude in infants supports this hypothesis (Reynolds, Courage, & Richards, 2010). The amplitude of the Nc component was largest for items that infants demonstrated a visual preference for regardless of whether the items were familiar or novel, suggesting that the Nc response may be a reflection of overall stimulus salience (Reynolds et al, 2010).…”

“…Due to these inconsistencies, Richards and Reynolds (2005) hypothesized that Nc amplitude “may be greater to the stimulus that elicits the greatest attentional response regardless of novelty versus familiarity or frequency of presentation (p. 612).” A recent study that assessed how visual preference, attention, and stimulus novelty influenced the Nc amplitude in infants supports this hypothesis (Reynolds, Courage, & Richards, 2010). The amplitude of the Nc component was largest for items that infants demonstrated a visual preference for regardless of whether the items were familiar or novel, suggesting that the Nc response may be a reflection of overall stimulus salience (Reynolds et al, 2010). …”

“…However, whether the Nc was larger to novel (Carver et al, 2003; Czernochowski et al, 2009; Dawson et al, 2002; Riggins et al, 2013) or previously encountered items (de Haan & Nelson, 1997; 1999; Marshall et al, 2002; Riggins et al, 2009) differed across studies. Recent research suggests that rather than reflecting either novelty or familiarity per se, the Nc response is sensitive to stimulus salience (Reynolds et al, 2010). Reynolds and colleagues (2010) found that the Nc was largest to stimuli that infants demonstrated a behavioral preference for, regardless of whether the stimulus was familiar or novel.…”

“…Recent research suggests that rather than reflecting either novelty or familiarity per se, the Nc response is sensitive to stimulus salience (Reynolds et al, 2010). Reynolds and colleagues (2010) found that the Nc was largest to stimuli that infants demonstrated a behavioral preference for, regardless of whether the stimulus was familiar or novel. The present finding is consistent with the hypothesis that the Nc reflects stimulus salience because children would need to orient greater attention to the similar lures, compared to the novel foils, in order to correctly reject them.…”