Stimulus complexity effects on the event-related potentials to task-irrelevant stimuli

Barkaszi, Irén; Czigler, István; Balázs, László

doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.05.007

Cited by 17 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, the conditions in which novelty results in facilitation of responses are strikingly similar to those in which the novelty P3 is elicited: Only deviant, complex stimuli elicit facilitation and the frontal novelty P3 ( Barkaszi et al, 2013;Schomaker et al, 2014d). Indeed, although in the literature the novelty P3 has often been associated with behavioral distraction Berti andSchroger, 2001, 2004;Escera et al, 2001;Munka and Berti, 2006;SanMiguel et al, 2008SanMiguel et al, , 2010bSchroger et al, 2000;Schroger and Wolff, 1998), some studies have instead hinted to a dissociation between the two.…”

Section: When Distraction Becomes Facilitation: Requirements For Novementioning

confidence: 86%

“…1). This suggests that the novelty P3 is not a response to novelty per se -as the impossible objects and fractals were novel in all situations -but to deviance; to be exact, the novelty P3 is only elicited by stimuli deviating from a context of stimuli that are equally or less complex than the deviants (also see Barkaszi et al, 2013). Note that stimulus complexity can be defined in many ways, but all definitions have in common that more complex stimuli have a large variety of features that cannot be easily compressed (e.g., Rigau et al, 2005).…”

Section: Contextual Noveltymentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Differs from other stimuli shown in the context (e.g, the experiment), but has been seen pre-experimentally Non-repeated images of familiar scenes, letters, well-known symbols (Polich and Comerchero, 2003;Friedman and Cycowicz, 2007;Barkaszi et al, 2013) 3. Spatial novelty/environmental novelty Novelty of the environment rather than of a single stimulus Unfamiliarized (virtual) environment (Straube et al, 2003a,b; reflect the same process (Simons et al, 2001).…”

Section: Contextual Noveltymentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Short- and long-lasting consequences of novelty, deviance and surprise on brain and cognition

Schomaker

Meeter

2015

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

155

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: When Distraction Becomes Facilitation: Requirements For Novementioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Contextual Noveltymentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Contextual Noveltymentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Short- and long-lasting consequences of novelty, deviance and surprise on brain and cognition

Schomaker

Meeter

2015

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

155

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In principle, both visual and auditory oddball paradigms will reveal differences between attended or unattended stimuli in various brain signals such as ERP and mismatch negativity (MMN) (Barkaszi et al, 2013;Wei et al, 2002;Wilson et al, 2012). However, the P300 amplitude evoked using visual oddball paradigms has a smaller amplitude compared to that induced by an auditory stimulus.…”

Section: Attention and Task Repetitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of attention alternation on movement-related cortical potentials in healthy individuals and stroke patients

Aliakbaryhosseinabadi

Kostić

Pavlovic

et al. 2017

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: In this study, we analyzed the influence of artificially imposed attention variations using the auditory oddball paradigm on the cortical activity associated to motor preparation/execution.Methods: EEG signals from Cz and its surrounding channels were recorded during three sets of ankle dorsiflexion movements. Each set was interspersed with either a complex or a simple auditory oddball task for healthy participants and a complex auditory oddball task for stroke patients. Results:The amplitude of the movement-related cortical potentials (MRCPs) decreased with the complex oddball paradigm, while MRCP variability increased. Both oddball paradigms increased the detection latency significantly (p<0.05) and the complex paradigm decreased the true positive rate (TPR) (p = 0.04).In patients, the negativity of the MRCP decreased while pre-phase variability increased, and the detection latency and accuracy deteriorated with attention diversion. Conclusion:Attention diversion has a significant influence on MRCP features and detection parameters, although these changes were counteracted by the application of the laplacian method.Significance: Brain-computer interfaces for neuromodulation that use the MRCP as the control signal are robust to changes in attention. However, attention must be monitored since it plays a key role in plasticity induction. Here we demonstrate that this can be achieved using the single channel Cz.

show abstract

“…Escera et al, 1998;Fabiani and Friedman, 1995;Gaeta et al, 2003;Spencer et al, 1999). This effect cannot be explained simply by deviance (both deviant and novel sounds deviate from the context of the standard sound sequence), nor by novelty (here understood as the association of rareness and unfamiliarity) because white noise distractors trigger a larger P3a than variable environmental novel sounds (Frank et al, 2012) and identical environmental sounds trigger a similar P3a than variable environmental novel sounds (Barkaszi et al, 2013). The difference in fronto-central P3a amplitude between novel and deviant sounds could, however, be explained by the fact that novel sounds are more salient due to their complexity and therefore more arousing, resulting in a steeper increase in phasic arousal and a larger fronto-central P3a.…”

Section: An Arousal Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fronto-central P3a to distracting sounds: an index of their arousing properties

Masson

Bidet-Caulet

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The P3a is an event-related potential comprising an early fronto-central phase and a late frontoparietal phase. It is observed after novel events and has classically been considered to reflect the attention processing of distracting stimuli. However, novel sounds can lead to behavioral facilitation as much as behavioral distraction. This illustrates the duality of the orienting response which includes both an attentional and an arousal component. Using a paradigm with visual or auditory targets to detect and irrelevant unexpected distracting sounds to ignore, we showed that the facilitation effect by distracting sounds is independent of the target modality and endures more than 1500 ms. These results confirm that the behavioral facilitation observed after distracting sounds is related to an increase in unspecific phasic arousal on top of the attentional capture. Moreover, the amplitude of the early phase of the P3a to distracting sounds positively correlated with subjective arousal ratings, contrary to other event-related potentials. We propose that the fronto-central early phase of the P3a would index the arousing properties of distracting sounds and would be linked to the arousal component of the orienting response. Finally, we discuss the relevance of the P3a as a marker of distraction.

show abstract

Stimulus complexity effects on the event-related potentials to task-irrelevant stimuli

Cited by 17 publications

References 37 publications

Short- and long-lasting consequences of novelty, deviance and surprise on brain and cognition

Short- and long-lasting consequences of novelty, deviance and surprise on brain and cognition

Influence of attention alternation on movement-related cortical potentials in healthy individuals and stroke patients

Fronto-central P3a to distracting sounds: an index of their arousing properties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About