The Level of Reaction Time Determines the ERP Correlates of Auditory Negative Priming

Abstract

Responding to a stimulus that had to be ignored previously is usually slowed-down (negative priming effect). This study investigates the reaction time and ERP effects of the negative priming phenomenon in the auditory domain. Thirty participants had to categorize sounds as musical instruments or animal voices. Reaction times were slowed-down in the negative priming condition relative to two control conditions. This effect was stronger for slow reactions (above intraindividual median) than for fast reactions (below intraindividual median). ERP analysis revealed a parietally located negativity of the negative priming condition compared to the control conditions between 550-730 ms poststimulus. This replicates the findings of Mayr, Niedeggen, Buchner, and Pietrowsky (2003) . The ERP correlate was more pronounced for slow trials (above intraindividual median) than for fast trials (below intraindividual median). The dependency of the negative priming effect size on the reaction time level found in the reaction time analysis as well as in the ERP analysis is consistent with both the inhibition as well as the episodic retrieval account of negative priming. A methodological artifact explanation of this effect-size dependency is discussed and discarded.

Spatial and identity negative priming in audition: Evidence of feature binding in auditory spatial memory

“…While this expectation regarding performance in an identity priming task may seem reasonable within the present context, it also appears to contradict the available empirical evidence, which seems to show quite clearly that identitylocation mismatch does not play a role in auditory identity negative priming, (1) in that the size of the negative priming effect is equivalent for trials with and without a mismatch between prime and probe and (2) in that auditory negative priming can be observed in the absence of a mismatch (Buchner & Mayr, 2004;Buchner & Steffens, 2001;, 2010a, 2010bMayr et al, 2009aMayr et al, , 2010bMayr, Niedeggen, Buchner, & Orgs, 2006;Mondor et al, 2005).…”

The negative priming paradigm: An update and implications for selective attention

“…In lexical-decision tasks, a reduced N400 amplitude has been observed when comparing both the IR condition and the semantic IR condition to the control condition (Heil & Rolke, 2004;Wagner, Baving, Berg, Cohen & Rockstroh, 2006). A reduced late positive complex in the IR condition relative to the control condition has also been noted in several studies with auditory stimuli (Mayr, Niedeggen, Buchner, & Pietrowsky, 2003;Mayr, Niedeggen, Buchner, & Orgs, 2006) and visual stimuli (Wagner et al, 2006). Ceballos, Nixon, and Tivis (2003) found an increased P 3 amplitude for the IR trials in a same-different task with novel objects.…”

ERP correlates of the irrelevant sound effect

“…Mean reference-to-baseline amplitudes within these windows were computed for each participant, distractor condition, presentation phase, and electrode. To examine topographical effects systematically, the electrodes were split according to their , as is often done in studies examining auditory selective attention (Mayr, Niedeggen, Buchner, & Orgs, 2006;Mayr, Niedeggen, Buchner, & Pietrowsky, 2003). This has been proven to be a good compromise between spatial resolution and reliability of the measures.…”

“…Mean reference‐to‐baseline amplitudes within these windows were computed for each participant, distractor condition, presentation phase, and electrode. To examine topographical effects systematically, the electrodes were split according to their caudality (anterior, central, posterior) and laterality (left, medial, right) into nine clusters of electrodes of approximately the same size (left anterior [LA; Af3, F3, F7], medial anterior [MA; Fz, Fc1, Fc2], right anterior [RA; Af4, F4, F8], left central [LC; Fc5, C5, C3, Cp5], medial central [MC; Cz, Cp1, Cp2], right central [RC; Fc6, C4, C6, Cp6], left posterior [LP; P3, P7, O1], medial posterior [MP; Pz, Po3, Po4, Oz], and right posterior [RP; P4, P8, O2]), as is often done in studies examining auditory selective attention (Mayr, Niedeggen, Buchner, & Orgs, 2006; Mayr, Niedeggen, Buchner, & Pietrowsky, 2003). This has been proven to be a good compromise between spatial resolution and reliability of the measures.…”