Attention‐dependent sound offset‐related brain potentials

Abstract

When performing sensory tasks, knowing the potentially occurring goal-relevant andirrelevant stimulus events allows the establishment of selective attention sets, which result in enhanced sensory processing of goal-relevant events. In the auditory modality, such enhancements are reflected in the increased amplitude of the N1 event-related potential (ERP) elicited by the onsets of task-relevant sounds. It has been recently suggested that ERPs to task-relevant sound offsets are similarly enhanced in a tone-focused state in comparison to a distracted one. The goal of the present study was to explore the influence of attention on ERPs elicited by sound offsets. ERPs elicited by tones in a duration-discrimination task were compared to ERPs elicited by the same tones in not-tone-focused attentional setting. Tone offsets elicited a consistent, attention-dependent bi-phasic (positive-negative -P1-N1) ERP waveform for tone durations ranging from 150 to 450 ms. The evidence, however, did not support the notion that the offset-related ERPs reflected an offset-specific attention set: The offset-related ERPs elicited in a duration-discrimination condition (in which offsets were taskrelevant) did not significantly differ from those elicited in a pitch-discrimination condition (in which the offsets were task-irrelevant). Although an N2 reflecting the processing of offsets in task-related terms contributed to the observed waveform, this contribution was separable from the offset-related P1 and N1. The results demonstrate that when tones are attended, offsetrelated ERPs may substantially overlap endogenous ERP activity in the post-offset interval irrespective of tone duration; and attention differences may cause ERP differences in such post-offset intervals.3

Sound offset-related brain potentials show retained sensory processing, but increased cognitive control activity in older adults

“…Although the between-deflection intervals were very similar to those observable in a typical onset-related waveform, the waveform itself was uniformly delayed by about 50 ms (i.e., the P1 peaked at about 100 ms, and the N1 at about 150 ms after the start of the offset transient). Interestingly, the waveform was most prominently observable at temporal sites (Horváth, 2016). Because of its topographical distribution and timing, it was suggested that the offset-related waveform may be analogous to the T-complex rather than to the typical onset-related waveform, in which the fronto-central negativity at 100 ms is the most pronounced.…”

“…Further ERP components overlapping the N1 and P2 can be found in different stimulation and task arrangements (Näätänen and Picton, 1987). In tasks requiring sound-based decisions, the deflection descriptively labeled as N1 may actually receive contributions from the processing negativity (PN, Näätänen et al, 1978; or negative difference -Nd, see Hansen and Hillyard, 1980) or N2 (Horváth, 2016) components. Whereas PN probably reflects processing related to the matching of the incoming sound to a voluntarily maintained auditory template, an attentional trace (Näätänen, 1982(Näätänen, , 1990, N2 may reflect the evaluation of the stimulus in terms of the given task (Ritter et al, 1979).…”

“…al. (2009), which omitted the distraction aspect of their paradigm, used multiple durations, and administered the task to larger younger and older adult groups than the previous studies (Horváth et al, 2009, andHorváth, 2016).…”

“…Because of its topographical distribution and timing, it was suggested that the offset-related waveform may be analogous to the T-complex rather than to the typical onset-related waveform, in which the fronto-central negativity at 100 ms is the most pronounced. The experiments by Horváth (2016) also revealed that the negative part of the offset-related waveform was composed of two components: one reflecting sensory offsetprocessing (N1), and one reflecting the processing of the offsets in task-related terms (N2).…”

“…Whereas PN probably reflects processing related to the matching of the incoming sound to a voluntarily maintained auditory template, an attentional trace (Näätänen, 1982(Näätänen, , 1990, N2 may reflect the evaluation of the stimulus in terms of the given task (Ritter et al, 1979). The positive waveform descriptively labeled as P2 may actually receive contributions from an overlapping PN or N2 (Czigler et al, 1992), which reduce its amplitude (or even make it unobservable, if the task-related N2 is much larger than the P2, see e.g., Experiment 3 in Horváth, 2016); or it can be enhanced by a P3a, which is elicited by unpredictably occurring stimuli (Friedman et al, 2001). That is, sounds presented in different experimental paradigms may have different processing demands, which are also reflected in the component-structure underlying the ERP waveforms.…”