Evaluating the feasibility of the steady‐state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) to study temporal attention

Abstract

Improvements in perceptual performance can be obtained when events in the environment are temporally predictable-and temporal predictability improves attention and sensory processing. The amplitude of the steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) has been shown to correlate with attention paid to a flickering stimulus even if the flickering stimulus is irrelevant for the task. However, to our knowledge, the validity of the SSVEP to study temporal attention has not been established. Therefore, we designed an SSVEP temporal attention task to evaluate whether the SSVEP and its temporal dynamics can be used to study temporal attention. We used a forced-choice perceptual detection task while presenting task-irrelevant visual flicker at alpha (10 Hz) and two surrounding frequencies (6 or 15 Hz). Temporal predictability was manipulated by having the interstimulus intervals (ISI) be constant or variable. Behavioral results replicated previous studies confirming the benefits of temporal expectations on performance for trials with constant ISI. EEG analyses revealed robust SSVEP amplitudes for all flicker frequencies, although a main effect of temporal expectations on SSVEP amplitude was not significant. Additional analyses revealed temporal predictability-related modulations of SSVEP amplitude at 10 Hz and its second harmonic (20 Hz). The effect of temporal predictability was also observed for the 6 Hz flicker, but not for 15 Hz for any ISI condition. These results provide some evidence for the feasibility of the SSVEP technique to study temporal attention for stimuli with flicker frequencies around the alpha band.

The SSVEP tracks attention, not consciousness, during perceptual filling-in

“… Ellis et al, 2006 ; Perlstein et al, 2003 ; Silberstein et al, 2001 ), and tonic states of vigilance ( Silberstein et al, 1990 ) among other factors (reviewed in Norcia et al, 2015 ; Vialatte et al, 2010 ). Of these possible explanations, we considered one of the likeliest candidate interpretations, in this experimental paradigm in particular, to be that SSVEP responses primarily reflect fluctuations in the allocation of attention ( Mora-Cortes et al, 2018 ). Indeed, attention increases the likelihood of PFI in psychophysical experiments ( De Weerd et al, 2006 ; Lou, 1999 ) and SSVEP amplitude has been extensively validated as a measure of attention to a flickering stimulus ( Ding et al, 2006 ; Hillyard et al, 1997 ; Kashiwase et al, 2012 ; Kim et al, 2007 ; Morgan et al, 1996 ; Müller et al, 2006 , Müller et al, 1998 ; Müller and Hillyard, 2000 ; Müller and Hübner, 2002 ; Steinhauser and Andersen, 2019 ; Toffanin et al, 2009 ; Walter et al, 2012 ).…”

Retinotopic and topographic analyses with gaze restriction for steady-state visual evoked potentials

“…SSVEPs have many applications in neural engineering and neuroscience. Evidence suggests SSVEP is a robust method to study visual perception, spatial and selective attention, cognitive fatigue, working memory, and brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) 3–5 .…”

Anticipatory and evoked visual cortical dynamics of voluntary temporal attention

“…One previous study has investigated temporal expectation using SSVER, with mixed results (Mora-Cortes et al, 2017). This study found post-target increases in SSVER amplitude for predictable vs. unpredictable stimuli for some flicker frequencies, but reversed effects at other flicker frequencies and in the harmonics, with variable dynamics.…”