vMMN for schematic faces: automatic detection of change in emotional expression

Abstract

Our brain is able to automatically detect changes in sensory stimulation, including in vision. A large variety of changes of features in stimulation elicit a deviance-reflecting event-related potential (ERP) component known as the mismatch negativity (MMN). The present study has three main goals: (1) to register vMMN using a rapidly presented stream of schematic faces (neutral, happy, and angry; adapted from Öhman etal., 2001); (2) to compare elicited vMMNs to angry and happy schematic faces in two different paradigms, in a traditional oddball design with frequent standard and rare target and deviant stimuli (12.5% each) and in an version of an optimal multi-feature paradigm with several deviant stimuli (altogether 37.5%) in the stimulus block; (3) to compare vMMNs to subjective ratings of valence, arousal and attention capture for happy and angry schematic faces, i.e., to estimate the effect of affective value of stimuli on their automatic detection. Eleven observers (19–32 years, six women) took part in both experiments, an oddball and optimum paradigm. Stimuli were rapidly presented schematic faces and an object with face-features that served as the target stimulus to be detected by a button-press. Results show that a vMMN-type response at posterior sites was equally elicited in both experiments. Post-experimental reports confirmed that the angry face attracted more automatic attention than the happy face but the difference did not emerge directly at the ERP level. Thus, when interested in studying change detection in facial expressions we encourage the use of the optimum (multi-feature) design in order to save time and other experimental resources.

Automatic change detection in vision: Adaptation, memory mismatch, or both? II: Oddball and adaptation effects on event-related potentials

“…The vMMN occurs in response to deviant stimulus features (orientation: e.g., Astikainen, Lillstrang, & Ruusuvirta, 2008;Jack, Roeber, & O'Shea, 2015;Kimura, Katayama, Ohira, & Schröger, 2009;Kimura & Takeda, 2013;Sulykos & Czigler, 2011;Takács, Sulykos. Czigler, Barkaszi, & Balázs, 2013; spatial frequency: e.g., Kenemans, Hebly, van den Heuvel, & Grent-'T-Jong, 2010;Sulykos & Czigler, 2011;Susac, Heslenfeld, Huonker, & Supek, 2014; color: e.g., Czigler, Balazs, & Winkler, 2002;Liu & Shi, 2008;Müller et al, 2012;Sysoeva, Lange, Sorokin, & Campbell, 2014; motion direction: e.g., Kremláček et al, 2006;Pazo-Alvarez, Amenedo, & Cadaveira, 2004) or categories (symmetry: Kecskés- Kovács, Sulykos, & Czigler, 2013b;color: Athanasopoulos, Dering, Wiggett, Kuipers, & Thierry, 2010;Clifford, Holmes, Davies, & Franklin, 2008;Mo, Xu, Kay, & Tan, 2011; facial emotion: e.g., Astikainen & Hietanen, 2009;Huang, Zhou, & Hu, 2013;Kreegipuu et al, 2013;Stefanics, Csukly, Komlosi, Czobor, & Czigler, 2012;Zhao & Jing, 2006; face gender: Kecskés- Kovács, Sulykos, & Czigler, 2013a; for reviews, see Czigler, 2007;Kimura et al, 2011;Kremláček et al, 2016;Stefanics et al, 2014).…”

Elementary sensory deficits in schizophrenia indexed by impaired visual mismatch negativity

“…According to previous studies (Czigler et al, 2004;Urban et al, 2008;Kreegipuu et al, 2013), including which used orientation deviants (130-190 ms (Czigler and Sulykos, 2010); 100-150 ms and 200-250 ms (Kimura et al, 2009)), we expected to find visual mismatch negativity in the 90-200 ms time windows. Brain responses were analyzed with repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with study group, stimulus type, region and their interaction as independent factors.…”

Visual Mismatch Negativity (vMMN): a Prediction Error Signal in the Visual Modality

“…Results suggest that future vMMN studies should take into account possible confounding effects caused by the differential processing of the emotional expressions as such. Kreegipuu et al (2013) presented participants with schematic faces of neutral, happy and angry expressions while they were attending to scrambled faces presented in the same series. Two stimulus presentation conditions were compared, an oddball and an optimum paradigm, the latter involving several different deviant facial emotions.…”