Automatic change detection in vision: Adaptation, memory mismatch, or both? II: Oddball and adaptation effects on event-related potentials

Flóra Bodnár, Domonkos File, István Sulykos, Krisztina Kecskés-Kovács, I. Czigler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this study we compared the event-related potentials (ERPs) obtained in two different paradigms: a passive visual oddball paradigm and an adaptation paradigm. The aim of the study was to investigate the relation between the effects of activity decrease following an adaptor (stimulus-specific adaptation) and the effects of an infrequent stimulus within sequences of frequent ones. In Experiment 1, participants were presented with different line textures. The frequent (standard) and rare (deviant) texture elements differed in their orientation. In Experiment 2, windmill pattern stimuli were presented in which the number of vanes differentiated the deviant and standard stimuli. In Experiment 1 the ERP differences elicited between the oddball deviant and the standard were similar to the differences between the ERPs to the nonadapted and adapted stimuli in the adaptation paradigm. In both paradigms the differences appeared as a posterior negativity with the latency of 120–140 ms. This finding demonstrates that the representation of a sequential rule (successive presentation of the standard) and the violation of this rule are not necessary for deviancy effects to emerge. In Experiment 2 (windmill pattern), in the oddball paradigm the difference potentials appeared as a long-lasting negativity. In the adaptation condition, the later part of this negativity (after 200 ms) was absent. We identified the later part of the oddball difference potential as the genuine visual mismatch negativity—that is, an ERP correlate of sequence violations. The latencies of the difference potentials (deviant minus standard) and the endogenous components (P1 and N1) diverged; therefore, the adaptation of these particular ERP components cannot explain the deviancy effect. Accordingly, the sources contributing to the standard-versus-deviant modulations differed from those related to visual adaptation; that is, they generated distinct ERP components.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2396-2411
Number of pages16
JournalAttention, Perception, and Psychophysics
Volume79
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 1 2017

Fingerprint

mismatch
Evoked Potentials
paradigm
stimulus
event
experiment
Mismatch
Change Detection
Event-related Potentials
Paradigm
Stimulus
Experiment
Negativity

Keywords

  • Adaptation
  • Change detection
  • Sensory memory
  • Sequential regularity
  • Visual mismatch negativity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Sensory Systems
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

Automatic change detection in vision : Adaptation, memory mismatch, or both? II: Oddball and adaptation effects on event-related potentials. / Bodnár, Flóra; File, Domonkos; Sulykos, István; Kecskés-Kovács, Krisztina; Czigler, I.

In: Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, Vol. 79, No. 8, 01.11.2017, p. 2396-2411.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bodnár, Flóra ; File, Domonkos ; Sulykos, István ; Kecskés-Kovács, Krisztina ; Czigler, I. / Automatic change detection in vision : Adaptation, memory mismatch, or both? II: Oddball and adaptation effects on event-related potentials. In: Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics. 2017 ; Vol. 79, No. 8. pp. 2396-2411.
@article{8f388bc6cda949719932abdf46e4c925,
title = "Automatic change detection in vision: Adaptation, memory mismatch, or both? II: Oddball and adaptation effects on event-related potentials",
abstract = "In this study we compared the event-related potentials (ERPs) obtained in two different paradigms: a passive visual oddball paradigm and an adaptation paradigm. The aim of the study was to investigate the relation between the effects of activity decrease following an adaptor (stimulus-specific adaptation) and the effects of an infrequent stimulus within sequences of frequent ones. In Experiment 1, participants were presented with different line textures. The frequent (standard) and rare (deviant) texture elements differed in their orientation. In Experiment 2, windmill pattern stimuli were presented in which the number of vanes differentiated the deviant and standard stimuli. In Experiment 1 the ERP differences elicited between the oddball deviant and the standard were similar to the differences between the ERPs to the nonadapted and adapted stimuli in the adaptation paradigm. In both paradigms the differences appeared as a posterior negativity with the latency of 120–140 ms. This finding demonstrates that the representation of a sequential rule (successive presentation of the standard) and the violation of this rule are not necessary for deviancy effects to emerge. In Experiment 2 (windmill pattern), in the oddball paradigm the difference potentials appeared as a long-lasting negativity. In the adaptation condition, the later part of this negativity (after 200 ms) was absent. We identified the later part of the oddball difference potential as the genuine visual mismatch negativity—that is, an ERP correlate of sequence violations. The latencies of the difference potentials (deviant minus standard) and the endogenous components (P1 and N1) diverged; therefore, the adaptation of these particular ERP components cannot explain the deviancy effect. Accordingly, the sources contributing to the standard-versus-deviant modulations differed from those related to visual adaptation; that is, they generated distinct ERP components.",
keywords = "Adaptation, Change detection, Sensory memory, Sequential regularity, Visual mismatch negativity",
author = "Fl{\'o}ra Bodn{\'a}r and Domonkos File and Istv{\'a}n Sulykos and Krisztina Kecsk{\'e}s-Kov{\'a}cs and I. Czigler",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3758/s13414-017-1402-x",
language = "English",
volume = "79",
pages = "2396--2411",
journal = "Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics",
issn = "1943-3921",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Automatic change detection in vision

T2 - Adaptation, memory mismatch, or both? II: Oddball and adaptation effects on event-related potentials

AU - Bodnár, Flóra

AU - File, Domonkos

AU - Sulykos, István

AU - Kecskés-Kovács, Krisztina

AU - Czigler, I.

PY - 2017/11/1

Y1 - 2017/11/1

N2 - In this study we compared the event-related potentials (ERPs) obtained in two different paradigms: a passive visual oddball paradigm and an adaptation paradigm. The aim of the study was to investigate the relation between the effects of activity decrease following an adaptor (stimulus-specific adaptation) and the effects of an infrequent stimulus within sequences of frequent ones. In Experiment 1, participants were presented with different line textures. The frequent (standard) and rare (deviant) texture elements differed in their orientation. In Experiment 2, windmill pattern stimuli were presented in which the number of vanes differentiated the deviant and standard stimuli. In Experiment 1 the ERP differences elicited between the oddball deviant and the standard were similar to the differences between the ERPs to the nonadapted and adapted stimuli in the adaptation paradigm. In both paradigms the differences appeared as a posterior negativity with the latency of 120–140 ms. This finding demonstrates that the representation of a sequential rule (successive presentation of the standard) and the violation of this rule are not necessary for deviancy effects to emerge. In Experiment 2 (windmill pattern), in the oddball paradigm the difference potentials appeared as a long-lasting negativity. In the adaptation condition, the later part of this negativity (after 200 ms) was absent. We identified the later part of the oddball difference potential as the genuine visual mismatch negativity—that is, an ERP correlate of sequence violations. The latencies of the difference potentials (deviant minus standard) and the endogenous components (P1 and N1) diverged; therefore, the adaptation of these particular ERP components cannot explain the deviancy effect. Accordingly, the sources contributing to the standard-versus-deviant modulations differed from those related to visual adaptation; that is, they generated distinct ERP components.

AB - In this study we compared the event-related potentials (ERPs) obtained in two different paradigms: a passive visual oddball paradigm and an adaptation paradigm. The aim of the study was to investigate the relation between the effects of activity decrease following an adaptor (stimulus-specific adaptation) and the effects of an infrequent stimulus within sequences of frequent ones. In Experiment 1, participants were presented with different line textures. The frequent (standard) and rare (deviant) texture elements differed in their orientation. In Experiment 2, windmill pattern stimuli were presented in which the number of vanes differentiated the deviant and standard stimuli. In Experiment 1 the ERP differences elicited between the oddball deviant and the standard were similar to the differences between the ERPs to the nonadapted and adapted stimuli in the adaptation paradigm. In both paradigms the differences appeared as a posterior negativity with the latency of 120–140 ms. This finding demonstrates that the representation of a sequential rule (successive presentation of the standard) and the violation of this rule are not necessary for deviancy effects to emerge. In Experiment 2 (windmill pattern), in the oddball paradigm the difference potentials appeared as a long-lasting negativity. In the adaptation condition, the later part of this negativity (after 200 ms) was absent. We identified the later part of the oddball difference potential as the genuine visual mismatch negativity—that is, an ERP correlate of sequence violations. The latencies of the difference potentials (deviant minus standard) and the endogenous components (P1 and N1) diverged; therefore, the adaptation of these particular ERP components cannot explain the deviancy effect. Accordingly, the sources contributing to the standard-versus-deviant modulations differed from those related to visual adaptation; that is, they generated distinct ERP components.

KW - Adaptation

KW - Change detection

KW - Sensory memory

KW - Sequential regularity

KW - Visual mismatch negativity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028744029&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028744029&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3758/s13414-017-1402-x

DO - 10.3758/s13414-017-1402-x

M3 - Article

C2 - 28853023

AN - SCOPUS:85028744029

VL - 79

SP - 2396

EP - 2411

JO - Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

JF - Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

SN - 1943-3921

IS - 8

ER -