Attentive novelty detection in humans is governed by pre-attentive sensory memory

Abstract

Being able to detect unusual, possibly dangerous events in the environment is a fundamental ability that helps ensure the survival of biological organisms. Novelty detection requires a memory system that models (builds neural representations of) events in the environment, so that changes are detected because they violate the predictions of the model. The earliest physiologically measurable brain response to novel auditory stimuli is the mismatch negativity, MMN, a component of the event-related potential. It is elicited when a predictable series of unvarying stimuli is unexpectedly followed by a deviating stimulus. As the occurrence of MMN is not usually affected by the direction of attention, MMN reflects the operation of automatic sensory (echoic) memory, the earliest memory system that builds traces of the acoustic environment against which new stimuli can be compared. The dependence of attentive novelty detection on earlier, pre-attentive processes, however, has remained elusive. Previous, related studies seem to suggest a relationship between MMN and attentive processes, although no conclusive evidence has so far been shown. Here we address novelty detection in humans both on a physiological and behavioural level, and show how attentive novelty detection is governed by a pre-attentive sensory memory mechanism.

Neural correlates of switching from auditory to speech perception

“…Here, we add that the categorical effect observed for linguistic MMR cannot be explained by an underlying discontinuity in acoustic mismatch responses. Previous work has shown that a longer duration and an earlier onset of mismatch responses are correlated with better discrimination performances (Tiitinen et al, 1994;Tremblay et al, 1998). This is confirmed in the present experiment.…”

Effects of Haloperidol on Selective Attention A Combined Whole-Head MEG and High-Resolution EEG Study

“…MEG studies of selective attention have, in turn, indicated that the amplitude of the N1m, elicited at about 100 ms poststimulus, is increased by selective attention, but the PN seems to be less visible for the MEG than EEG (Fujiwara et al 1998). The mismatch negativity (MMN), or magnetic counterpart MMNm, is a pre-attentive ERP/ERF component elicited by any change in a sequence of frequent standard tones reflecting automatic detection and orientation to sudden environmental changes (Alho 1995;Näätänen 1992;Näätänen et al 1978;Tiitinen et al 1994).…”

“…MEG studies of selective attention have, in turn, indicated that the amplitude of the N1m, elicited at about 100 ms poststimulus, is increased by selective attention, but the PN seems to be less visible for the MEG than EEG (Fujiwara et al 1998). The mismatch negativity (MMN), or magnetic counterpart MMNm, is a pre-attentive ERP/ERF component elicited by any change in a sequence of frequent standard tones reflecting automatic detection and orientation to sudden environmental changes (Alho 1995;Näätänen 1992;Näätänen et al 1978;Tiitinen et al 1994).Only a few studies have been devoted to drug effects on selective attention indexing by the PN. The NMDA receptor antagonist ketamine, alcohol, and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) have been shown to reduce PN (Smolnik et al 1999;Hirvonen et al 2000;Oranje et al 2000).…”

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

“…It has been shown that auditory MMN is independent of the evoking stimulus attribute (e.g., Näätänen and Alho, 1997;Näätänen et al, 1989), which support the notion that this component reflects an endogenous process such as memory-based mismatch processing. Also, amplitudes of auditory MMN have been shown to be sensitive to the magnitude of the stimulus change: as the magnitude of the change is increased, the amplitude tends to be enhanced (e.g., Kujala and Näätänen;2003;Näätänen and Alho, 1997;Näätänen et al, 1989;Novak et al, 1990;Paavilainen et al, 1989;Sams et al, 1985;Tiitinen et al, 1994). If change-related positivity is associated with a mismatch process between the representation of an incoming stimulus and a memory trace of a previously presented stimulus, as predicted by the memory-based hypothesis, change-related positivities in response to a stimulus change should be sensitive to the magnitude of the difference between S1 and S2 regardless of physical attributes of the evoking stimulus.…”