Preattentive Binding of Auditory and Visual Stimulus Features

Abstract

We investigated the role of attention in feature binding in the auditory and the visual modality. One auditory and one visual experiment used the mismatch negativity (MMN and vMMN, respectively) event-related potential to index the memory representations created from stimulus sequences, which were either task-relevant and, therefore, attended or task-irrelevant and ignored. In the latter case, the primary task was a continuous demanding within-modality task. The test sequences were composed of two frequently occurring stimuli, which differed from each other in two stimulus features (standard stimuli) and two infrequently occurring stimuli (deviants), which combined one feature from one standard stimulus with the other feature of the other standard stimulus. Deviant stimuli elicited MMN responses of similar parameters across the different attentional conditions. These results suggest that the memory representations involved in the MMN deviance detection response encoded the frequently occurring feature combinations whether or not the test sequences were attended. A possible alternative to the memory-based interpretation of the visual results, the elicitation of the McCollough color-contingent aftereffect, was ruled out by the results of our third experiment. The current results are compared with those supporting the attentive feature integration theory. We conclude that (1) with comparable stimulus paradigms, similar results have been obtained in the two modalities, (2) there exist preattentive processes of feature binding, however, (3) conjoining features within rich arrays of objects under time pressure and/or longterm retention of the feature-conjoined memory representations may require attentive processes.

An ERP study of visual change detection: Effects of magnitude of spatial frequency changes on the change-related posterior positivity

“…However, the memory-based interpretation of change-related positivity must be treated with caution at least for two reasons. First, several studies reported that memory-based change detection in the visual modality was reflected by a posterior negativity (i.e., visual MMN) (e.g., Czigler et al, 2002;Heslenfeld, 2003;Winkler et al, 2005). Although the change-related positivity and the visual MMN have a similar latency and scalp-distribution, further study is necessary to systematize the relationship of the two components with inversed polarity.…”

“…Visual MMN at around 100-300 ms can be elicited by the infrequent deviant stimuli presented at unattended locations, which suggests the existence of pre-attentive change detection in the visual modality (e.g., Alho et al, 1992;Czigler et al, 2002Czigler et al, , 2004Heslenfeld, 2003;Kenemans et al, 2003;Lorenzo-Lopez et al, 2004;Mazza et al, 2005;Pazo-Alvarez et al, 2004;Stagg et al, 2004;Winkler et al, 2005). For the functional significance of visual MMN, however, two contrasting hypotheses have been proposed: memory-based comparison hypothesis and different refractoriness state hypothesis.…”

“…For the functional significance of visual MMN, however, two contrasting hypotheses have been proposed: memory-based comparison hypothesis and different refractoriness state hypothesis. Memory-based comparison hypothesis assumes that visual MMN reflects a mismatch signal as a result of comparison between current stimulus input and the memory trace of the preceding stimulus, such as auditory MMN (e.g., Czigler et al, 2002;Heslenfeld, 2003;Winkler et al, 2005). On the other side, according to the different refractoriness state hypothesis, visual MMN reflects less refractoriness of neuronal populations specifically activated by a low-frequent stimulus in comparison with a high-frequent stimulus (e.g., Alho et al, 1992;Kenemans et al, 2003;Mazza et al, 2005).…”

Neurophysiological evidence for context-dependent encoding of sensory input in human auditory cortex

“…Moreover, focused attention in and of itself does not affect MMN elicitation (Sussman et al, 2003b). Additionally, Sussman et al (2005a) found no significant difference in the amplitude of the MMN elicited in conditions of highly focused attention to a visual task compared to a low load visual task (watching a video) (see also Winkler et al, 2005). Thirdly, Näätänen and his coworkers established that the process generating the MMN component is based on an auditory sensorymemory representation of the standard and not by differences in the refractory state of the neural elements activated by the standard and the deviant stimuli (Näätänen, 1992;Näätänen and Alho, 1997;Näätänen and Winkler, 1999); see also Jacobsen et al, 2003).…”

Verificação das respostas do mismatch negativity (MMN) em sujeitos adultos normais

“…The model of the MMN results showed that the integration of sound elements with a set of sound that occur after sound segregation in independent courses, and suggests that the auditory aspect is quickly organized in distinctive courses and the integration of sequential elements for perceptual units is carried out in distinctive pre-formed courses and provides some flexibility to identify changes in sound models in the appreciation of music or speech understanding. Winkler et al (2005) 29 studied the role of attention in the auditory and visual modes. They used MMN and vMMN potentials, respectively.…”