Visual mismatch negativity in the dorsal stream is independent of concurrent visual task difficulty

Abstract

The manipulation of attention can produce mismatch negativity-like components that are not necessarily connected to the unintentional sensory registration of the violation of probability-based regularity. For clinical purposes, attentional bias should be quantified because it can vary substantially among subjects and can decrease the specificity of the examination. This experiment targets the role of attention in the generation of visual mismatch negativity (vMMN). The visual regularity was generated by a sequence of two radial motions while subjects focused on visual tasks in the central part of the display. Attentional load was systematically varied and had three levels, no-load, easy, and difficult. Rare, deviant, and frequent standard motions were presented with a 10/60 ratio in oddball sequences. Data from 12 subjects was recorded from 64 channels and processed. vMMN was identified within the interval of 142–198 ms. The mean amplitude was evaluated during the aforementioned interval in the parietal and fronto-central regions. A general linear model for repeated measures was applied to the mean amplitude with a three-factor design and showed a significant difference [F(1, 11) = 17.40, p = 0.002] between standard and deviant stimuli and between regions [F(1, 11) = 8.40, p = 0.01]; however, no significant effect of the task [F(2, 22) = 1.26, p = 0.30] was observed. The unintentional detection of irregularity during the processing of the visual motion was independent of the attentional load associated with handling the central visual task. The experiment did not demonstrate an effect of attentional load manipulation on mismatch negativity (MMN) induced by the motion-sequence, which supports the clinical utility of this examination. However, used stimulation paradigm should be further optimized to generate mismatch negativity that is stable enough to be usable not only for group comparisons but also for a single subject assessment.

Voluntary action modulates the brain response to rule-violating events indexed by visual mismatch negativity

“…For example, previous studies have consistently shown that manipulation of the task load does not significantly influence visual MMN elicitation per se (Heslenfeld, 2003;Kremláček et al, 2013;Pazo-Alvarez et al, 2004a), although the latency of visual MMN can be slightly affected (Kimura and Takeda, 2013). This strongly suggests that predictive processes underlying visual MMN elicitation can operate automatically without substantial attentional requirements.…”

Brain activity from stimuli that are not perceived: Visual mismatch negativity during binocular rivalry suppression

“…That is, when we attend to or are conscious of something other than the blinking indicator light, such as a pedestrian crossing the road or a song on the car stereo, generative models for the blinking light continue to be established, tested, and updated. Although there is plenty of evidence showing that vMMN occurs in the absence of attention to the standards and deviants (Berti, 2011;Heslenfeld, 2002;Kimura & Takeda, 2013;Kreml aček et al, 2013;Kuldkepp, Kreegipuu, Raidvee, N€ a€ at€ anen, & Allik, 2013;Pazo-Alvarez, Amenedo, & Cadaveira, 2004; for reviews, see Czigler, 2007;Stefanics et al, 2014), to the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence showing that vMMN occurs in the absence of consciousness of those stimuli: previous attempts have failed either to elicit a vMMN from stimuli that are not perceived (Czigler, Weisz, & Winkler, 2007;Flynn, Liasis, Gardner, & Towell, 2016;Meng et al, 2015) or to hide their stimuli from consciousness (Jack et al, 2015;Kogai, Aoyama, Amano, & Takeda, 2011;van Rhijn, Roeber, & O'Shea, 2013). In the experiment we report here, we sought to provide that evidence.…”

Visual Mismatch Negativity (vMMN): a Prediction Error Signal in the Visual Modality

“…Kremláček et al (2013) presented subjects with radial motion stimuli in the periphery of the visual field using an oddball paradigm and manipulated the attentional load by varying the difficulty of a central distractor tasks. They aimed to manipulate the amount of available attentional resources that might have been involuntarily captured by the vMMN-evoking stimuli presented in the periphery outside of the attentional focus.…”