Omitted Stimulus Potential depends on the sensory modality

Abstract

Determining the characteristics of Omitted Stimulus Potential (OSP) parameters using different sensory modalities is important because they reflect timing processes and have a substantial influence on time perception. At the same time, the central mechanisms of time perception associated with sensory processing can modulate cortical brain waves related to cognition. This experiment tested the relationship between parameters of the whole OSP brain wave when trains of auditory, visual or somatosensory stimuli were applied. Twenty healthy young college volunteers completed within-subjects trials with sensory stimuli at a fixed frequency of 0.5 Hz that ceased unpredictably. These passive trials required no behavioural response and were administered to measure the complete set of OSP (i.e., the rate of rise, amplitude and peak latency). OSPs showed a faster rate of rise for auditory stimuli compared to visual or somatosensory stimuli. Auditory stimuli also produced a shorter time to peak and higher amplitude waves. No significant differences were obtained between visual and somatosensory waves. The results suggest that the brain handles interval timing and expectation with greater efficiency for the auditory system compared to other sensory modalities. This auditory supremacy is congruent with previous behavioural studies using missing stimulus tasks and could be useful for clinical purposes, for example, designing auditory-based brain-computer interfaces for patients with motor disabilities and visual impairment. The rate of rise is a dynamic measure that should be included in the ERPs analysis.

Neural Substrates and Models of Omission Responses and Predictive Processes

“…Across human studies, omission responses obtained by employing slow-rhythm and non-rhythmic protocols require either an attention-driven increase in neuronal gain (Motz et al, 2013;Hernández and Hernández-Sánchez, 2017), multimodal projections to local circuitry (McIntosh et al, 1998;Nittono, 2005;den Ouden et al, 2009;SanMiguel et al, 2013a,b;Stekelenburg and Vroomen, 2015;van Laarhoven et al, 2017van Laarhoven et al, , 2020Dercksen et al, 2020), or other forms of naturalistic (Lehmann et al, 2016) or behavioral relevance (Woerd et al, 2017;Aitken et al, 2020) of the omitted stimulus, in order to be detectable. In fact, attentional and top-down modulation of local circuitry can produce the synchronized activity of large neuronal populations necessary to produce detectable EEG responses to stimuli.…”