Independent processing of visual stimulus changes in ventral and dorsal stream features indexed by an early positive difference in event-related brain potentials

Abstract

In event-related brain potential (ERP) studies of brain activity using a visual S1-S2 matching task, change stimuli elicit a posterior positive component with a latency of 100-200 ms. To elucidate the hierarchical organization of the processing of a visual stimulus change based on multiple stimulus features, ERPs were recorded in 12 participants performing an S1-S2 matching task with stimuli defined by color (mediated by the ventral stream) and motion direction (mediated by the dorsal stream). Each trial consisted of two sequentially presented stimuli (S1-S2), where S2 was either (1) the same as S1 (i.e., no-change), (2) different from S1 in color only (color change), (3) different in motion direction only (motion direction change), or (4) different in both color and motion direction (color-motion direction change). These trials were presented in random order with equal probability, and the participants were asked to respond to one of these trials in separate blocks.Relative to the no-change stimulus, the three types of change stimuli elicited posterior positivities.The scalp-topography of change positivities differed according to the feature changed. In addition, the amplitude and scalp-topography of change positivities in response to a conjunction change were the respective sums of those in response to changes in the corresponding single features.These results suggest that the change detection system reflected by the change positivity is separate for each feature dimension, and these operate independently.

Attention switching function of memory-comparison-based change detection system in the visual modality

“…The peak latency and scalp-distribution of the positivity are consistent with change-related positivity observed in previous studies (e.g., Fonteneau and Davidoff, 2007;Fu et al, 2003;Kimura et al, 2005aKimura et al, , 2005bKimura et al, , 2006aKimura et al, , 2006bKimura et al, , 2006cWang et al, 2003). The present finding that change-related positivity was elicited by size decrements suggests that such change-related positivity could be elicited when stimulus changes engage memory-comparison-based change detection but do not strongly engage refractoriness-based rareness detection.…”

“…As seen in the interpretation by Berti and Schröger (2001, 2006, this component might reflect memory-comparison-based change detection (e.g., Czigler et al, 2002Winkler et al, 2005) or refractoriness-based rareness detection (e.g., Alho et al, 1992;Kenemans et al, 2003;Kimura et al, 2006c;Mazza et al, 2005). Also, change-related positivity is usually observed at around 100-200 ms after stimulus onset with a posterior scalp-distribution (e.g., Fonteneau and Davidoff, 2007;Fu et al, 2003;Kimura et al 2005aKimura et al , 2005bKimura et al , 2006aKimura et al , 2006bKimura et al , 2006cWang et al, 2003).…”

“…Recently, Kimura et al (2005aKimura et al ( , 2005bKimura et al ( , 2006aKimura et al ( , 2006bKimura et al ( , 2006c and Fonteneau and Davidoff (2007) proposed that this component reflects memory-comparison-based change detection.…”

“…In previous studies on the functional significance of change-related positivity, it has been suggested that change-related positivity reflects memory-comparison-based change detection (Fonteneau and Davidoff, 2007;Kimura et al, 2005aKimura et al, , 2005bKimura et al, , 2006aKimura et al, , 2006bKimura et al, , 2006c. For example, Kimura et al (2006c) found that change-related positivity was observed in response to stimulus changes even when the stimulus changes were not infrequent events, and the amplitude was determined by the mismatch between Visual distraction & ERPs 23 the current stimulus and the immediately preceding stimulus regardless of the probability of eliciting stimuli.…”

Visual Mismatch Negativity and Categorization

“…It is difficult to explain the unusual polarity of the difference potentials of this study. One explanation is that the posterior effect was an emergence of a "change positivity component" (e.g., Kimura et al, 2006). Even in this case, it is difficult to explain the lack of posterior negativity, but the results clearly show category differences.…”