Involvement of memory‐comparison‐based change detection in visual distraction

Abstract

The involvement of memory-comparison-based change detection in visual distraction was elucidated. Not only luminance increments that engaged memory-comparison-based change detection and refractoriness-based rareness detection but also luminance decrements that engaged only memory-comparison-based change detection caused behavioral distraction, which was mirrored by a posterior negativity (240-260 ms, posterior N2) and a broad positivity (420-460 ms, P3a) that reflected attentional capture. Preceding these effects, luminance increments elicited a posterior positivity (100-120 ms, change-related positivity) and a posterior negativity (120-140 ms, change-related negativity), whereas luminance decrements elicited only a posterior positivity (160-180 ms, change-related positivity). These results suggest that memory-comparison-based change detection indexed by change-related positivity is involved in visual distraction as a result of attentional capture.

Visual mismatch negativity and unintentional temporal-context-based prediction in vision

“…This assumption leads to the hypothesis that the functional significance of visual MMN might be the calling of attention that is required for the extensive processing of detected prediction-incongruent events. This hypothesis is indirectly supported by observations that visual MMN is often followed by attention-related ERP components, such as N2b and/or P300 Schröger, 2001, 2006;Kimura et al, 2008aKimura et al, , 2008cKimura et al, , 2008dKimura et al, , 2010dLiu and Shi, 2008;Wei et al, 2002).…”

“…The second half of this review discusses the nature of the unintentional temporal-context-based prediction in vision. Here, on the basis of several key findings provided from visual MMN and other prediction-related studies, the nature of the unintentional prediction is discussed in terms of (1) behavioral indicators, (2) cognitive properties, and Schröger, , 2004and Schröger, , 2006Boll and Berti, 2009;Grimm et al, 2009), direction of motion (Amenedo et al, 2007;Hosák et al, 2008;Kremlácek et al, 2006;Lorenzo-Lopéz et al, 2004;PazoAlvarez et al, 2004aPazoAlvarez et al, , 2004bUrban et al, 2008), orientation (Astikainen et al, 2004(Astikainen et al, , 2008Czigler and Pató, 2009;Czigler and Sulykos, 2010;Flynn et al, 2009;Kimura et al, , 2010aKimura et al, , 2010bSulykos and Czigler, 2011), spatial frequency (Heslenfeld, 2003;Kenemans et al, 2003Kenemans et al, , 2008Maekawa et al, 2005Maekawa et al, , 2009Sulykos and Czigler, 2011; for a corresponding magnetoencephalography (MEG) study, see Kogai et al, 2011), contrast/ luminance (Kimura et al, 2008c(Kimura et al, , 2008d(Kimura et al, , 2010c(Kimura et al, , 2010dStagg et al, 2004;Wei et al, 2002), color (Czigler et al, 2002(Czigler et al, , 2004Czigler and Sulykos, 2010;Grimm et al, 2009;…”

“…Visual MMN and the visual N1 difference can also be reliably dissociated through the use of infrequent energetic decrements, which are considered to elicit visual MMN but do not yield the visual N1 difference (e.g., contrast/luminance decrements, Kimura et al, 2008cKimura et al, , 2010cKimura et al, , 2010dStagg et al, 2004;size decrements, Kimura et al, 2008a; for corresponding brain imaging findings, see e.g., Gardner et al, 2005; for corresponding auditory MMN findings, see e.g., Näätänen et al, 1989a;Woldorff et al, 1991), infrequent duration deviants, which are considered to elicit visual MMN but do not yield the visual N1 difference (Khodanovich et al, 2010;Qiu et al, 2011; for corresponding auditory MMN findings, see e.g., Jacobsen and Schröger, 2003;Kaukoranta et al, 1989;Näätänen et al, 1989b), and occasional stimulus omission in constant successive visual stimulation, which is thought to elicit visual MMN but cannot elicit visual N1 itself (Czigler et al, 2006b; for corresponding auditory MMN findings, see e.g., Tervaniemi et al, 1994;Yabe et al, 1997). In addition, the visual N1 difference problem does not become critical under the use of more complex, non-oddball stimulus sequences where individual stimuli are usually presented with equal probability (Czigler et al, 2006a;Kimura et al, 2011a;Stefanics et al, 2011; the details of stimulus sequences will be shown in Section 2.2).…”

P3a from white noise

“…Katayama and colleagues reported that unique visual stimulus distracter designs (e.g., red squares on either side of the target stimulus) that "capture attention" from the target/standard task produce robust P3a components (Sawaki and Katayama, 2006, 2007. The nature of the distracter disruption has led to the direct assessment of ERP components linked to early stimulus feature evaluation, which engages the selective attention garnered by both stimulus context and task difficulty (Kimura et al, 2008a(Kimura et al, , 2008b(Kimura et al, , 2008cSawaki and Katayama, 2008b). Task difficulty affects this process as perceptually similar target and standard stimuli elicit larger P3a components than distracters presented in easy discrimination tasks (Demiralp et al, 2001;Hagen et al, 2006).…”

Top-down attention affects sequential regularity representation in the human visual system

“…Additionally, one might argue that the visual MMN reflected a greater activation level (i.e., a lower refractoriness or adaptation level) of afferent neurons that specifically respond to infrequent stimuli compared to those that specifically respond to frequent stimuli (i.e., a larger amplitude of visual N1 in response to infrequent compared to frequent stimuli, e.g., Alho et al, 1992;Berti and Schröger, 2006;Kenemans et al, 2003;Kimura et al, 2009). In the present study, however, we assessed deviant-related effects in response to infrequent low-luminance stimuli inserted in frequent high-luminance stimuli (i.e., sudden energetic decrements) that have been confirmed to engage memorymismatch processes but not to engage the greater activation level of afferent neurons (see e.g., Kimura et al, 2008a;Stagg et al, 2004 for the visual modality; Kaukoranta et al, 1989;Näätänen et al, 1989 for the auditory modality). Furthermore, it might be argued that the negativity treated as visual MMN was, in fact, associated with selective attention effects such as selection negativity (SN, Harter and Previc, 1978).…”