2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.07.264
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

ERP correlates of two separate top-down mechanisms in visual categorization

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This interpretation of P2 does not explain neither the voltage increasing according to visual loading between blocks nor the changed configuration on one corner of the stimuli however. An alternative explanation could be that P2 reflects a "top-down" processing effect [33,74] for maintaining the memorized items as one whole object, and for preventing it from contaminating surrounding stimuli. Such interpretation could also explain why we observed a voltage increasing in that component, related to the complexity of the background geometric form, in the absence of behavioral differences.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This interpretation of P2 does not explain neither the voltage increasing according to visual loading between blocks nor the changed configuration on one corner of the stimuli however. An alternative explanation could be that P2 reflects a "top-down" processing effect [33,74] for maintaining the memorized items as one whole object, and for preventing it from contaminating surrounding stimuli. Such interpretation could also explain why we observed a voltage increasing in that component, related to the complexity of the background geometric form, in the absence of behavioral differences.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the close relation of the nickname with self and personal salience, cognitive processing of nickname was involved with strong emotional and motivational responses; thus, it could activate similar P2 and N2 components as those elicited by real names, which was significantly different from those elicited by famous and unfamiliar names. At the same time, the N1 component is associated with the physical characteristics of the stimulus 39 , and all the target stimuli comprised three characters with similar physical characteristics (e.g., length and structure). Thus, there was no significant difference in the N1 component among the names.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%