Importance Modulates the Temporal Features of Self-Referential Processing: An Event-Related Potential Study

Abstract

A growing number of studies have demonstrated preferential processing of self-related information. However, previous research has been limited in examining the distinction between processes related to the self and those related to the non-self, it remains unclear how self-related information with differing levels of importance is processed within the self. The present study examined how the importance of self-related content affects the neural activity involved in self-referential processing. The behavioral results showed that the participants had faster responses to more important self-related content. The event-related potential (ERP) results showed that early attention resources were diverted to the identification of highly important self-related content compared with minimally important self-related content, as reflected by the enhanced P200. Furthermore, the N200 amplitude for highly important self-related content was smaller than for moderately important self-related content which, in turn, were smaller than minimally important self-related content. Moreover, the P300 amplitudes were modulated by the degree of importance of self-related content, whereby a higher importance of self-related content led to larger P300 amplitudes. Taken together, these findings demonstrate an effect of the degree of importance of the self-related content at both behavioral and neurophysiological levels.

Am I the same person across my life span? An event‐related brain potentials study of the temporal perspective in self‐identity

“…These results are in line with previous research (Keyes et al., 2010; Knyazev, 2013; Miyakoshi et al., 2010; Sui et al., 2006; Xu et al., 2017). Studies on the neural underpinnings of self‐relevant processing have suggested that the larger the long‐lasting positivity, the more important is the self‐related content (Anaki & Bentin, 2009; Chen et al., 2011; Muñoz et al., 2020; Tacikowski & Nowicka, 2010; Xu et al., 2017). In other words, larger amplitudes in later components might reflect the increased allocation of attention, and more elaborate processing, presumably due to the meaningfulness of self‐relevant information.…”

“…Our results support that the N170 is insensitive to an effect of face familiarity. This is in accordance with previous works (Alzueta et al., 2019; Butler et al., 2013; Kotlewska & Nowicka, 2015; Miyakoshi et al., 2008, 2010; Sui et al., 2006; Tanaka et al., 2006; Xu et al., 2017). In turn, this pattern is consistent with the proposal that the N170 reflects an automatic mechanism detecting the global configuration of a face in a recognition task, rather than identifying the identity of a face (Olivares et al., 2015; Schweinberger & Neumann, 2016).…”

“…In contrast, the sense of self in a particular moment in time corresponds to a synchronic component (Doering et al., 2012). Although research on the neural basis of self‐recognition has focused on a particular moment in time (e.g., Alzueta, Melcón, Poch, & Capilla, 2019; Xu et al., 2017), less is known about the neural processes involved in how self‐continuity assembles as a function of time (Morin, 2006; Northoff, 2017).…”

“…Of the three pictures of each identity, one was current, one related to adolescence, and one related to childhood. Based on the literature reviewed above, we expected: (i) larger late positivities to the self, compared to the others, whilst close‐friend exhibiting an intermediate position or similar to the unknown condition (Miyakoshi, Kanayama, Iidaka, & Ohira, 2010; Miyakoshi et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2017); (ii) ERP modulations would be enhanced for the self across life stages, in particular, related to current self‐faces (Apps, Tajadura‐Jiménez, Turley, & Tsakiris, 2012; Butler et al., 2013); (iii) the past self should be differentiated from the past close‐relative at some point in the neural processing; (iv) regarding early face processing, whereas the N170 modulations would be sensitive to facial structural changes, the N250 may be more responsive to facial identity and some degree of familiarity (Olivares et al., 2015); (v) along the different ERP components, the effect of self‐face processing compared to other faces would be relatively task‐independent (Humphreys & Sui, 2016), that is, despite asking participants to focus on different aspects of the stimuli in the different blocks.…”

Dispositional Self-Construal Modulates Neural Representation of Self: An ERP Study

“…The P2 component is related to the detection of emotionally significant stimuli, and increased P2 amplitudes reflect more attention resource allocation to these stimuli (Yuan et al, 2010;Carretié et al, 2011). In addition, the P2 component was found to be influenced by the extent of self-relevance and the importance of self-relevant content (Chen et al, 2011;Fan et al, 2013;Xu et al, 2017). For example, a previous ERP study showed that self-name (higher self-relevance) induced increased P2 amplitudes than lower self-relevance and nonself-relevant name stimuli (Fan et al, 2013).…”