Automatic change detection and spatial attention: a visual mismatch negativity study

Abstract

Visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) is the electrophysiological correlate of automatic detection of unattended changes in the visual environment. However, vMMNs' relatedness to spatial attention has not been explicitly tested. Thus, the aim of the study was to investigate the effects of spatial attention on the vMMN event-related potential component. To this end, participants were instructed to fixate and attend to task-related stimuli. In an oddball sequence, offset stimuli were applied, i.e., from time-to time, the two sides of permanently presented objects disappeared. Distance between the task-related and unrelated events resulted in the typical finding of spatial attention; the amplitude of the N1 component was larger at the shorter distance between the two kinds of events. VMMN was elicited by the deviant vanishing parts, with no reliable effect of distance between the task-field and vMMN-related stimuli. In terms of the difference potentials, vMMN was followed by a positive posterior component in the 270-330 ms range. This positivity was much larger when the task-field was close to vMMN-related stimuli. The reappearance of the vanishing parts was also investigated. The reappearance of the whole objects after a deviant offset elicited vMMN but only when the task-field was close to the oddball sequence. We concluded that infrequently vanishing parts of objects are detected automatically. However, these deviant events initiate orientation only if the objects are close to the field of task-relevant events. Similarly, automatic registration of the rare but expected events are registered only in the visual field close to the focus of attention.

Automatic detection of violations of statistical regularities in the periphery is affected by the focus of spatial attention: A visual mismatch negativity study

“…Unfortunately, in the File et al. () and in the present study we obtained only small P1, but the larger N1 in the File et al. () and the broader N1 in the present study shows that facilitative activity was larger near to the attended area.…”

“…() and in the present study we obtained only small P1, but the larger N1 in the File et al. () and the broader N1 in the present study shows that facilitative activity was larger near to the attended area. More specifically, in the close condition, we recorded two peaks in the N1 range, the second of which was sensitive to distance from the attended field.…”

“…These stimuli capture attention more effectively than the offset stimuli in the File et al. () study (e.g. Jonides & Yantis, ; Kramer & Hahn, ; Mounts, ).…”

“…The same eye tracking data analysis was conducted as in File et al. (); the screen was divided into four regions of interest: middle ( x : [−9.1]°–9.1°, y : [−1.8°]–1.8°), top ( x : [−9.1]°–9.1°, y : 1.8–5.9°), bottom ( x : [−9.1]°–9.1°, y : [−1.8]°–[−5.9]°), and oddball ( x : [−9.1]°–9.1°, y : [−5.9]–[−10.1°]), see Figure . The gaze lengths were calculated for the ROIs separately within the two blocks.…”

“…Event‐related potentials (ERPs) recorded in response to a task‐irrelevant probe nearer or farther away from the loci of task‐related stimuli show that stimuli in close proximity to the task‐related stimuli elicit a larger response (Heinze et al., ; Kornrumpf & Sommer, ; Nigbur, Schneider, Sommer, Dimigen, & Stürmer, ). Recently, we (File, Sulykos, & Czigler, ) investigated the detection of task irrelevant violation of sequential regularities as a function of spatial distance from the focus of attention. To assess the effect of distance on violated regularities, we analysed the visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) component of the ERPs.…”