The ups and downs of temporal orienting: a review of auditory temporal orienting studies and a model associating the heterogeneous findings on the auditory N1 with opposite effects of attention and prediction

Abstract

The temporal orienting of attention refers to the process of focusing (neural) resources on a particular time point in order to boost the processing of and the responding to sensory events. Temporal attention is manipulated by varying the task-relevance of events at different time points or by inducing expectations that an event occurs at a particular time point. Notably, the electrophysiological correlates of these manipulations at early processing stages are not identical: Auditory studies operationalizing temporal attention through task-relevance consistently found enhancements of early, sensory processing, as shown in the N1 component of the auditory event-related potential (ERP). By contrast, previous work on temporal orienting based on expectations showed mixed results: early, sensory processing was either enhanced or attenuated or not affected at all. In the present work, I will review existing findings on temporal orienting with a special focus on the auditory modality and present a working model to reconcile the previously heterogeneous results. Specifically, I will suggest that when expectations are used to manipulate attention, this will lead both to an orienting of attention and to the generation of precise predictions about the upcoming event. Attention and prediction are assumed to have opposite effects on early auditory processing, with temporal attention increasing and temporal predictions decreasing the associated ERP correlate, the auditory N1. The heterogeneous findings of studies manipulating temporal orienting by inducing expectations may thus be the consequence of differences in the relative contribution of attention and prediction processes. The model's predictions will be discussed in the context of a functional interpretation of the auditory N1 as an attention call signal, as presented in a recent model on auditory processing.

Sequential processing in an auditory equiprobable Go/NoGo task with variable interstimulus interval

“…While these studies used varied conditions of fixed ISI lengths, research indicates that predictability of time intervals affects ERPs (Doherty et al, 2005;Lange, 2009). It is well documented that explicit information predicting stimulus onset can be used to focus ttention voluntarily to a relevant point in time (Lange, 2013), a phenomenon known as temporal orienting. In the case of fixed ISIs, attention can be oriented to the regularity in the rhythmic timing of stimulus presentations.…”

Optimistic, pessimistic, realistic: Event-related potential evidence for how depressive symptoms influences expectation formation in the Human brain

“…Visual inspection of the P2 indicated a similar pattern, although the interaction failed to reach statistical significance. Since, according to the predictive coding model of perception, certain neuronal responses mainly reflect the inconsistency between the sensory inputs and the internal predictions (Friston, 2005(Friston, , 2009Egner et al, 2010), the midlatency electrophysiological response can be considered to represent the magnitude of prediction errors (Schafer and Marcus, 1973;Schafer et al, 1981;Lange, 2009Lange, , 2013Todorovic, 2012;SanMiguel et al, 2013;Timm et al, 2013;Hsu et al, 2014). It seems that while less depressed participants tend to expect a large bonus (so they find a small bonus surprising), more depressed participants tend to expect a small bonus (so they find a large bonus surprising).…”

“…Neuronal responses index how much of the sensory inputs cannot be accounted for by the internal predictions (i.e., prediction errors), which will be communicated forward to update internal predictions (Summerfield et al, 2008;Egner et al, 2010;Clark, 2013). This notion has been corroborated, for example, by the N1 eventrelated potential (ERP) component being attenuated when triggered by expected relative to unexpected auditory stimuli (Schafer and Marcus, 1973;Schafer et al, 1981;Lange, 2009Lange, , 2013Todorovic, 2012;SanMiguel et al, 2013;Timm et al, 2013;Hsu et al, 2014). The predictive coding model of perception offers a new way to understand the neurobiological basis of mental illness.…”

Attention‐dependent sound offset‐related brain potentials

“…Rif, Hari, Hämäläinen, & Sams, 1991;Woldorff & Hillyard, 1991), the task-relevant tone frequency (e.g. Kauramäki, Jääskeläinen, & Sams, 2007;Okamoto, Stracke, Wolters, Schmael, & Pantev, 2007), or the time-point of task-relevant sound event (see Lange, 2013). Similarly to the N1 waveform itself, the attention-dependent N1-enhancement is composed of different sub-components.…”