Effects of spatial selective attention on the steady-state visual evoked potential in the 20–28 Hz range

Müller, Matthias; Picton, Terence W.; Valdés‐Sosa, Pedro A.; Riera, Jorge J.; Teder‐Salejarvi, Wolfgang A.; Hillyard, Steven A.

doi:10.1016/s0926-6410(97)00036-0

Cited by 268 publications

(245 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

213

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This phenomenon, called covert attention, has been verified in many human studies in which gaze shifting was carefully measured (e.g., van Voorhis and Hillyard, 1977;Regan, 1989;Mangun and Buck, 1998;Golla et al, 2005). It has also been shown in SSVEP studies in which covert attention to an oscillating region or regions resulted in increased SSVEP activity at corresponding frequencies (Müller et al, 1998;Müller and Hillyard, 2000;Müller et al, 2003). These SSVEP studies were designed to rule out the possibility that results could be explained by shifting gaze.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Towards an independent brain–computer interface using steady state visual evoked potentials

Allison

McFarland

Schalk

et al. 2008

Clinical Neurophysiology

284

183

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-Brain -computer interface (BCI) systems using steady state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs) have allowed healthy subjects to communicate. However, these systems may not work in severely disabled users because they may depend on gaze shifting. This study evaluates the hypothesis that overlapping stimuli can evoke changes in SSVEP activity sufficient to control a BCI. This would provide evidence that SSVEP BCIs could be used without shifting gaze.Methods-Subjects viewed a display containing two images that each oscillated at a different frequency. Different conditions used overlapping or non-overlapping images to explore dependence on gaze function. Subjects were asked to direct attention to one or the other of these images during each of twelve one-minute runs.Results-Half of the subjects produced differences in SSVEP activity elicited by overlapping stimuli that could support BCI control. In all remaining users, differences did exist at corresponding frequencies but were not strong enough to allow effective control.Conclusions-The data demonstrate that SSVEP differences sufficient for BCI control may be elicited by selective attention to one of two overlapping stimuli. Thus, some SSVEP-based BCI approaches may not depend on gaze control. The nature and extent of any BCI's dependence on muscle activity is a function of many factors, including the display, task, environment, and user.Significance-SSVEP BCIs might function in severely disabled users unable to reliably control gaze. Further research with these users is necessary to explore the optimal parameters of such a system and validate online performance in a home environment.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Towards an independent brain–computer interface using steady state visual evoked potentials

Allison

McFarland

Schalk

et al. 2008

Clinical Neurophysiology

284

183

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The stimuli, or small background squares on which the stimuli are superimposed, flicker at different frequencies, eliciting SSVEPs at each frequency. Importantly, it has been observed that the SSVEP amplitude is greater for attended than unattended locations (Morgan et al, 1996;Müller et al, 1998a). In addition, when a central cue directs attention to a particular stimulus on a trial-by-trial basis, SSVEPs evoked by the attended stimulus also increase in amplitude (Müller et al, 1998b).…”

Section: Electrophysiological Signatures Of Covert Attention Allocationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lateralized electrical brain activity reveals covert attention allocation during speaking

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TSpeakers usually begin to speak while only part of the utterance has been planned. Earlier work has shown that speech planning processes are reflected in speakers' eye movements as they describe visually presented objects. However, to-be-named objects can be processed to some extent before they have been fixated upon, presumably because attention can be allocated to objects covertly, without moving the eyes. The present study investigated whether EEG could track speakers' covert attention allocation as they produced short utterances to describe pairs of objects (e.g., "dog and chair"). The processing difficulty of each object was varied by presenting it in upright orientation (easy) or in upside down orientation (difficult). Background squares flickered at different frequencies in order to elicit steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs). The N2pc component, associated with the focusing of attention on an item, was detectable not only prior to speech onset, but also during speaking. The time course of the N2pc showed that attention shifted to each object in the order of mention prior to speech onset. Furthermore, greater processing difficulty increased the time speakers spent attending to each object. This demonstrates that the N2pc can track covert attention allocation in a naming task. In addition, an effect of processing difficulty at around 200-350 ms after stimulus onset revealed early attention allocation to the second to-be-named object. The flickering backgrounds elicited SSVEPs, but SSVEP amplitude was not influenced by processing difficulty. These results help complete the picture of the coordination of visual information uptake and motor output during speaking.

show abstract

“…The SSVEP is an ongoing oscillatory response elicited by a flickering stimulus that indexes neural activity related to stimulus processing continuously. It has the same temporal frequency as the driving stimulus and, importantly, its amplitude is enhanced by both spatial (12,13) and feature-selective (14)(15)(16)(17) attention. This allows us to concurrently measure the allocation of processing resources to both the attended and the unattended stimulus.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral performance follows the time course of neural facilitation and suppression during cued shifts of feature-selective attention

Andersen

Müller²

2010

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

176

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A central question in the field of attention is whether visual processing is a strictly limited resource, which must be allocated by selective attention. If this were the case, attentional enhancement of one stimulus should invariably lead to suppression of unattended distracter stimuli. Here we examine voluntary cued shifts of featureselective attention to either one of two superimposed red or blue random dot kinematograms (RDKs) to test whether such a reciprocal relationship between enhancement of an attended and suppression of an unattended stimulus can be observed. The steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP), an oscillatory brain response elicited by the flickering RDKs, was measured in human EEG. Supporting limited resources, we observed both an enhancement of the attended and a suppression of the unattended RDK, but this observed reciprocity did not occur concurrently: enhancement of the attended RDK started at 220 ms after cue onset and preceded suppression of the unattended RDK by about 130 ms. Furthermore, we found that behavior was significantly correlated with the SSVEP time course of a measure of selectivity (attended minus unattended) but not with a measure of total activity (attended plus unattended). The significant deviations from a temporally synchronized reciprocity between enhancement and suppression suggest that the enhancement of the attended stimulus may cause the suppression of the unattended stimulus in the present experiment.human EEG | neural mechanisms of shifting | steady-state visual evoked potentials | feature-based attention | random dot kinematogram S hifting and focusing attention on a certain location, object, or feature is a key element in the extraction of sensory information to allow for adaptive behavior. The distribution of attentional resources and the underlying temporal neural mechanisms of attentional shifting are still not well understood. Some previous studies have measured event-related potentials (ERPs) during the cue-target interval (1-5). This approach, however, allows one to investigate only the neural mechanisms of cue processing and target expectation and, thus, the activity of a cortical control network (1); it cannot provide information on the temporal dynamics of neural facilitation and/or suppression in early visual processing areas that are involved in the processing of the new to-be-attended visual stimulus. Knowledge of these dynamics in early visual processing areas seems pivotal for understanding the effect of top-down control mechanisms in attentional shifts because behavioral performance is closely linked to the modulation of the cortical evoked activity representing the newly attended stimulus (6). If visual processing were a strictly limited resource, which is distributed by selective attention, enhancement of an attended stimulus should be accompanied by an equal suppression of the unattended stimulus. However, in previous studies, we showed that shifting attention to either one of two lateral flickering stimuli was purely facilitatory, with ...

show abstract

Effects of spatial selective attention on the steady-state visual evoked potential in the 20–28 Hz range

Cited by 268 publications

References 26 publications

Towards an independent brain–computer interface using steady state visual evoked potentials

Towards an independent brain–computer interface using steady state visual evoked potentials

Lateralized electrical brain activity reveals covert attention allocation during speaking

Behavioral performance follows the time course of neural facilitation and suppression during cued shifts of feature-selective attention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About