Given the information overload often imparted to human cognitive-processing systems, suppression of irrelevant and distracting information is essential for successful behavior. Using a hybrid block/event-related fMRI design, we characterized proactive and reactive brain mechanisms for filtering distracting stimuli. Participants performed a flanker task, discriminating the direction of a target arrow in the presence versus absence of congruent or incongruent flanking distracting arrows during either Pure blocks (distracters always absent) or Mixed blocks (distracters on 80% of trials). Each Mixed block had either 20% or 60% incongruent trials. Activations in the dorsal frontoparietal attention network during Mixed versus Pure blocks evidenced proactive (blockwise) recruitment of a distraction-filtering mechanism. Sustained activations in right middle frontal gyrus during 60% Incongruent blocks correlated positively with behavioral indices of distraction-filtering (slowing when distractersmightoccur)andnegativelywithdistraction-relatedbehavioralcosts(incongruentvscongruenttrials),suggestingaroleincoordinating proactive filtering of potential distracters. Event-related analyses showed that incongruent trials elicited greater reactive activations in 20% (vs 60%) Incongruent blocks for counteracting distraction and conflict, including in the insula and anterior cingulate. Context-related effects in occipitoparietal cortex consisted of greater target-evoked activations for distracter-absent trials (central-target-only) in Mixed versus Pure blocks, suggesting enhanced attentional engagement. Functional-localizer analyses in V1/V2/V3 revealed less distracter-processing activity in 60% (vs 20%) Incongruent blocks, presumably reflecting tonic suppression by proactive filtering mechanisms. These results delineate brain mechanisms underlying proactive and reactive filtering of distraction and conflict, and how they are orchestrated depending on distraction probability, thereby aiding task performance.
Ultimately, we aim to generalize and translate scientific knowledge to the real world, yet current understanding of human visual perception is based predominantly on studies of two-dimensional (2-D) images. Recent cognitivebehavioral evidence shows that real objects are processed differently to images, although the neural processes that underlie these differences are unknown. Because real objects (unlike images) afford actions, they may trigger stronger or more prolonged activation in neural populations for visuo-motor action planning. Here, we recorded electroencephalography (EEG) when human observers viewed real-world three-dimensional (3-D) objects or closely matched 2-D images of the same items. Although responses to real objects and images were similar overall, there were critical differences. Compared to images, viewing real objects triggered stronger and more sustained eventrelated desynchronization (ERD) in the µ frequency band (8-13 Hz)-a neural signature of automatic motor preparation. Event-related potentials (ERPs) revealed a transient, early occipital negativity for real objects (versus images), likely reflecting 3-D stereoscopic differences, and a late sustained parietal amplitude modulation consistent with an 'old-new' memory advantage for real objects over images. Together, these findings demonstrate that real-world objects trigger stronger and more sustained action-related brain responses than images do. These results highlight important similarities and differences between brain responses to images and richer, more ecologically relevant, real-world objects.
When dealing with significant sensory stimuli, performance can be hampered by distracting events. Attention mechanisms lessen such negative effects, enabling selection of relevant information while blocking potential distraction. Recent work shows that preparatory brain activity, occurring before a critical stimulus, may reflect mechanisms of attentional control aimed to filter upcoming distracters. However, it is unknown whether the engagement of these filtering mechanisms to counteract distraction in itself taxes cognitive-brain systems, leading to performance costs. Here we address this question and, specifically, seek the behavioral signature of a mechanism for the filtering of potential distraction within and between sensory modalities. We show that, in potentially distracting contexts, a filtering mechanism is engaged to cope with forthcoming distraction, causing a dramatic behavioral cost in no-distracter trials during a speeded tactile discrimination task. We thus demonstrate an impaired processing caused by a potential, yet absent, distracter. This effect generalizes across different sensory modalities, such as vision and audition, and across different manipulations of the context, such as the distracter's sensory modality and pertinence to the task. Moreover, activation of the filtering mechanism relies on both strategic and reactive processes, as shown by its dynamic dependence on probabilistic and cross-trial contingencies. Crucially, across participants, the observed strategic cost is inversely related to the interference exerted by a distracter on distracter-present trials. These results attest to a mechanism for the monitoring and filtering of potential distraction in the human brain. Although its activation is indisputably beneficial when distraction occurs, it leads to robust costs when distraction is actually expected but currently absent.
Objective. Electroencephalography (EEG) is widely used by clinicians, scientists, engineers and other professionals worldwide, with an increasing number of low-cost, commercially-oriented EEG systems that have become available in recent years. One such system is the Cognionics Quick-20 (Cognionics Inc., San Diego, USA), which uses dry electrodes and offers the convenience of portability thanks to its built-in amplifier and wireless connection. Because of such characteristics, this system has been used in several applications for both clinical and basic research studies. However, an investigation of the quality of the signals that are recorded using this system has not yet been reported. Approach. To bridge this gap, here we conducted a systematic comparison of signal quality between the Cognionics Quick-20 system and the Brain Products actiCAP/actiCHamp (Brain Products GmbH, Munich, Germany), a state-of-the-art, wet-electrode, research-oriented EEG system. Resting-state EEG data were recorded from twelve human participants at rest in eyes open and eyes closed conditions. For both systems we evaluated the similarity of mean recorded power spectral density, and detection of alpha suppression associated with eyes open relative to eyes closed. Main results. Power spectral densities were highly correlated across systems, with only minor topographical variability across the scalp. Both systems recorded alpha suppression during eyes open relative to eyes closed conditions. Significance. These results attest to the robustness and reliability of the dry-electrode Cognionics system relatively to the widely used Brain Products laboratory EEG system, and thus validate its utility for clinical and basic research purposes, at least in studies in which participants do not move.
Robust perception requires efficient integration of information from our various senses. Much recent electrophysiology points to neural areas responsive to multisensory stimulation, particularly audiovisual stimulation. However, psychophysical evidence for functional integration of audiovisual motion has been ambiguous. In this study we measure perception of an audiovisual form of biological motion, tap dancing. The results show that the audio tap information interacts with visual motion information, but only when in synchrony, demonstrating a functional combination of audiovisual information in a natural task. The advantage of multimodal combination was better than the optimal maximum likelihood prediction.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.