Time course and nature of stimulus evaluation in category induction as revealed by visual event-related potentials

Bigman, Zehavah; Pratt, Hillel

doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2003.10.003

Cited by 54 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides, significant condition and electrode interaction appeared in P2, greater difference happened at central-frontal sites while no difference occurred in occipital-parietal sites, which is consistent with the waveform showed in Fig. 2, indicating that perceptual processing is mainly related to the central-frontal sites [13] .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…Standard geometric figures can be a suitable stimulus set. In addition, experimenter can also easily control the subjects' experience on the stimulus [13] . In the present study, the subjects were required to first compare two geometric figures and find the common features (forming AFS) [14] , and then followed with a categorization task which required the subjects to take the AFS as standard and judge whether the third geometric figure shared a category with the preceding two geometric figures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The time course of visual categorization: Electrophysiological evidence from ERP

Chen

Qiu

et al. 2006

CHINESE SCI BULL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual categorization can be derived from interaction between inputting features set (IFS) from outside stimuli and anticipating features set (AFS) from concept, and such interaction can take two forms: match extraction and conflict control. Using ERP recording, we investigated the temporal course of visual categorization. The results indicated that the larger the AFS, the higher the amplitude of the N1 was generated, which demonstrated the effect of the AFS on the attention. When the size of the AFS was larger than or equal to 2, prominent N2 component was elicited, which demonstrated the effect of conflict when the feature of IFS mismatched with the feature of the AFS. The judgment of category was manifested on the LPC component, and this component was also sensitive to conflict control. Based on the results, we proposed that the temporal course of visual categorization was as follows: selective attention, feature perception, feature match/extraction and judgment of category/conflict control. Among those processes, the judgment of category is the core processing; however the former three sub-processes form the base of categorization. The results are in support of the idea that LPC is responsible for highlevel categorization process.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The time course of visual categorization: Electrophysiological evidence from ERP

Chen

Qiu

et al. 2006

CHINESE SCI BULL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While N1 amplitude differed between the conditions requiring distributed attention (c2 and c3) and the condition that did not (c1), the difference between the extent of the distribution of attention did not result in significant differences in N1 amplitude between c2 and c3. The P2 is believed to relate to perceptual processing [Bigman and Pratt, 2004;Hillyard and Anllo-Vento, 1998] and we found a main effect of condition on P2 amplitude, but not latency. The results of Pairwise Comparisons of Means showed that the P2 reflected the magnitude of the difference in feature perception.…”

Section: Early Processingmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…The PIC task consists of two phases: forming a concept and categorization. When forming a concept, participants are presented two stimuli simultaneously and are asked to infer the common feature or features [Bigman and Pratt, 2004]. During categorization, they must decide whether the probe stimulus shares a feature with the two former stimuli.…”

Section: Partially Incongruent Categorization Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

The timing of cognitive control in partially incongruent categorization

Chen

Wang

et al. 2007

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We designed a novel task, partially incongruent categorization (PIC), to examine the timing of cognitive control. In the PIC task, participants categorized the probe stimulus according to a specific concept, and the number of features corresponding to the concept was varied. When there was one feature (c1 condition), the probe would elicit only categorization, but when there was more than one feature (c2 and c3 conditions), the probe would also elicit cognitive control. Here, the high temporal resolution of event-related potentials (ERPs) was utilized to investigate the temporal patterns of activity during conflict detection and control. Cognitive control elicited a N2 that was much larger in response to c2 and c3 than c1 in stimulus-locked waveforms, and no difference was evident between c2 and c3. The N2 was followed by a P3 that was much less on c2 and c3 than c1 trials, with no difference between c2 and c3. A dipole source analysis for two difference waves, c2-c1 and c3-c1, further showed that the corresponding dipoles of the N2 and P3 in the cognitive control conditions were in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and prefrontal cortex (PFC), respectively. Taken together, the present findings support that ERP components in response to the PIC task reflect the time course of cognitive control: the N2 responds to conflict information and subsequently activates the P3 to control this conflict. The connection between the ACC and PFC is supported by their sequential activation within trials.

show abstract

“…The visual N100, that may peak earlier over frontal than posterior regions of the scalp (Ciesielski andFrench, 1989, Mangun andHillyard, 1991;Carretie et al, 2003), indexes an important sensory gating mechanism of attention (Foxe and Simpson, 2002;Luck and Hillyard, 1994), associated with task relevance (Ito and Urland, 2005), that only occurs when an intentional discrimination is required Rugg et al, 1987;Vogel and Luck, 2000). It has been hypothesized that focusing attention on the visual stimuli increases the N100 amplitude and facilitates further perceptual processing of relevant perceptual features (Bigman and Pratt, 2004;Luck et al, 2000;Rugg et al, 1987). In this sense, the amplitude enhancement of the N100 in response to low affording/high attractive compared to high affording/ high attractive tools may indicate a greater attentional effort devoted to solve the incongruence between the esthetic and motoric attributes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attractiveness and affordance shape tools neural coding: Insight from ERPs

Righi

Orlando

Marzi

2014

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues.Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. The relation between attractiveness and motor affordance is a key topic in design and has not yet been investigated electrophysiologically. In this respect, action affordance and attractiveness represent two crucial dimensions in object processing (specifically for tools). In light of this evidence, Event Related Potentials (ERPs) enabled us to gain new insights into the time course of the interaction between these two dimensions during an explicit tool evaluation task. Behaviorally, tools that were judged as high affording and high attractive yielded faster response times than those judged as low affording and low attractive. The ERP results showed that early processes related to sensory gating and feature extraction (N100) were sensitive to both affordance and attractiveness; the P200 was dominated by affordance, indexing a facilitated access to motor action representation. The N300, P300 and the Late Positive Potential (LPP) showed enhanced responses for highly affording/attractive tools, reflecting the interconnection between attractiveness and affordance. Later responses were entirely affected by attractiveness, suggesting additional affective responses evoked by desirable tools. We are showing that things that are perceived as more functional and attractive have a privileged neural activation in the time course of tool evaluation, for the first time.

show abstract

Time course and nature of stimulus evaluation in category induction as revealed by visual event-related potentials

Cited by 54 publications

References 68 publications

The time course of visual categorization: Electrophysiological evidence from ERP

The time course of visual categorization: Electrophysiological evidence from ERP

The timing of cognitive control in partially incongruent categorization

Attractiveness and affordance shape tools neural coding: Insight from ERPs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About