Visual mismatch negativity for changes in orientation – a sensory memory‐dependent response

Abstract

It remains unclear whether the mismatch negativity of event-related potentials (ERPs) in vision resembles its auditory counterpart in terms of memory relatedness. We recorded ERPs to visual bars in adult humans engaged in an auditory task. In one condition, a bar ('standard') repeated at 400- or 1100-ms non-stimulated intervals was rarely (P = 0.1) replaced by another bar of a different orientation ('deviant'). In the other condition (400-ms intervals), the occurrences of the standards were replaced by 10 (P = 0.1 each) bars of different orientations, including that of the deviant ('control-deviant'). Deviants shifted ERPs towards negative polarity relative to standards in occipital electrodes and towards positive polarity in frontal electrodes at 185-205 ms post-stimulus but only when 400-ms non-stimulated intervals were applied. Furthermore, the shift existed even relative to ERPs to control-deviants. The findings suggest that, as in audition, vision supports the detection of voluntarily unattended changes per se within the constraints of sensory memory. The findings also pave the way for the future exploration of both intact and impaired memory-based visual processing and memory capacity.

Distraction in a visual multi-deviant paradigm: Behavioral and event-related potential effects

“…These results are in line with previous findings showing posterior deviance-related negativity in the ERPs in the time range around 120 to 320 ms for visual deviations in color (Czigler et al, 2002(Czigler et al, , 2004 and location (Berti and Schröger, 2001 as well as for pattern violations (Stagg et al, 2004). These deviancerelated negativities were discussed as either a response to the rareness of a stimulus (as neurons responding to the standard might be more refractory than neurons responding to a rare deviant feature; see Kenemans et al, 2003) or a true visual MMN which reflects a process of regularity extraction in the visual sequence and a comparison of the observed regularities with each incoming stimulus (see Astikainen et al, 2008;Czigler, 2007;Czigler et al, 2002). The use of appropriate control conditions allowed to disentangle the contribution of both factors and showed that pure refractoriness cannot explain the negative ERP component Schröger, 2004, 2006;Czigler et al, 2002).…”

A challenging, unpredictable world for people with Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…Recent studies have provided convincing evidence for a visual equivalent of MMN (vMMN) in response to deviancy based on various stimulus features such as colour (Czigler et al, 2002), form (Berti and Schroger, 2004); (Stagg et al, 2004), motion (Kremlacek et al, 2006;Pazo-Alvarez et al, 2004), spatial frequency (Kimura et al, 2006;Maekawa et al, 2005), and orientation (Astikainen et al, 2008;Czigler and Csibra, 1992). A number of studies in adults have identified vMMN as a negative detection peaking 100-250 ms post stimulus change onset (see Pazo-Alvarez et al, 2003 for a review).…”

Visual mismatch negativity and unintentional temporal-context-based prediction in vision

“…With regard to this issue, Astikainen et al (2008) used oddball sequences consisting of deviant and standard bar stimuli with different orientations (the duration of stimuli was 100 ms) and tested the elicitation of visual MMN with the use of two constant SOAs in separate blocks (500 and 1200 ms). They reported that visual MMN was elicited by deviant stimuli in the 500-ms SOA condition, but not in the 1200-ms SOA condition.…”

“…Currently, the most reliable approach is the combined use of an "equiprobable" sequence and a traditional oddball sequence (Astikainen et al, 2008;Czigler et al, 2002;Kimura et al, , 2010aKimura et al, , 2010bPazoAlvarez et al, 2004a; for the original protocol in auditory MMN studies, see e.g., Schröger, 2001, 2003;Schröger, 1997a;Schröger and Wolff, 1996). For example, used a traditional oddball sequence that consisted of the randomized presentation of bar stimuli with two different orientations (deviant 20% and standard 80%; Fig.…”

“…The second half of this review discusses the nature of the unintentional temporal-context-based prediction in vision. Here, on the basis of several key findings provided from visual MMN and other prediction-related studies, the nature of the unintentional prediction is discussed in terms of (1) behavioral indicators, (2) cognitive properties, and Schröger, , 2004and Schröger, , 2006Boll and Berti, 2009;Grimm et al, 2009), direction of motion (Amenedo et al, 2007;Hosák et al, 2008;Kremlácek et al, 2006;Lorenzo-Lopéz et al, 2004;PazoAlvarez et al, 2004aPazoAlvarez et al, , 2004bUrban et al, 2008), orientation (Astikainen et al, 2004(Astikainen et al, , 2008Czigler and Pató, 2009;Czigler and Sulykos, 2010;Flynn et al, 2009;Kimura et al, , 2010aKimura et al, , 2010bSulykos and Czigler, 2011), spatial frequency (Heslenfeld, 2003;Kenemans et al, 2003Kenemans et al, , 2008Maekawa et al, 2005Maekawa et al, , 2009Sulykos and Czigler, 2011; for a corresponding magnetoencephalography (MEG) study, see Kogai et al, 2011), contrast/ luminance (Kimura et al, 2008c(Kimura et al, , 2008d(Kimura et al, , 2010c(Kimura et al, , 2010dStagg et al, 2004;Wei et al, 2002), color (Czigler et al, 2002(Czigler et al, , 2004Czigler and Sulykos, 2010;Grimm et al, 2009;…”