Time courses of attended and ignored object representations

Noah, Sean; Meyyappan, Sreenivasan; Ding, Mingzhou; Mangun, George R.

doi:10.31234/osf.io/2aj3n

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But the times for which unattended stimuli yield significant activity are all more than 400 ms after onset [ 54 – 56 ]. This is well into, and past, the vMMN range, from 150 ms to 300 ms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is indeed experimental evidence that processing of unattended visual stimuli diminishes with time [54][55][56]. For example, Moerel and colleagues [56] showed participants superimposed rectangular gratings of different orientations and colors (blue and orange) for 100 ms; participants pressed a key when a cued grating (e.g., 90˚, blue) appeared in a particular sequence of trials including all possible combinations of orientations and colors.…”

Section: Unattended Orientation Changes Are Processed Early But Not I...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attention is required for canonical brain signature of prediction error despite early encoding of the stimuli

Male

O’Shea

2023

PLoS Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prediction error is a basic component of predictive-coding theory of brain processing. According to the theory, each stage of brain processing of sensory information generates a model of the current sensory input; subsequent input is compared against the model and only if there is a mismatch, a prediction error, is further processing performed. Recently, Smout and colleagues found that a signature of prediction error, the visual (v) mismatch negativity (MMN), for a fundamental property of visual input—its orientation—was absent without endogenous attention on the stimuli. This is remarkable because the weight of evidence for MMNs from audition and vision is that they occur without endogenous attention. To resolve this discrepancy, we conducted an experiment addressing 2 alternative explanations for Smout and colleagues’ finding: that it was from a lack of reproducibility or that participants’ visual systems did not encode the stimuli when attention was on something else. We conducted a similar experiment to that of Smout and colleagues. We showed 21 participants sequences of identically oriented Gabor patches, standards, and, unpredictably, otherwise identical, Gabor patches differing in orientation by ±15°, ±30°, and ±60°, deviants. To test whether participants encoded the orientation of the standards, we varied the number of standards preceding a deviant, allowing us to search for a decrease in activity with the number of repetitions of standards—repetition suppression. We diverted participants’ attention from the oriented stimuli with a central, letter-detection task. We reproduced Smout and colleagues’ finding of no vMMN without endogenous attention, strengthening their finding. We found that our participants showed repetition suppression: They did encode the stimuli preattentively. We also found early processing of deviants. We discuss various explanations why the earlier processing did not extend into the vMMN time window, including low precision of prediction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%