Visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) for low- and high-level deviances: A control study

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The aim of our studies was to separate the effects of violating a sequential rule (genuine visual mismatch negativity; gvMMN) from the decreased activity in response to repeated stimuli (stimulus-specific adaptation; SSA) for simple and more complex stimuli. To accomplish this goal, different control procedures were applied with the aim of finding the correct control for vMMN studies. Event-related brain electric activity (ERPs) was measured in response to nonattended visual stimuli that were presented either in an oddball manner or in various control sequences. To identify the cortical sources of the different processes, the sLORETA inverse solution was applied to the average ERP time series. In Experiment 1, the stimuli were line textures, and the deviancy was different line orientations. SSA fully explained the deviant-related ERP effects (increased posterior negativity in the 105–190 ms range). In Experiments 2 and 3, windmill patterns were used. Infrequent windmill patterns with 12 vanes elicited gvMMN (posterior negativities in the 100–200 and 200–340 ms ranges), whereas in the case of the less complex (six vanes) stimuli, SSA explained the negative deflection in both latency ranges (178–216 and 270–346 ms). In Experiment 3, infrequent stimuli with six vanes elicited deviant-related posterior negativity within the sequence of less complex (four vanes) frequent patterns. We reconcile the discrepant results by proposing that the underlying processes of vMMN are not uniform but depend strongly on the eliciting stimulus and that the complexity difference between the infrequent and frequent stimuli has considerable influence on the deviant-related response.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2153-2170
Number of pages18
JournalAttention, Perception, and Psychophysics
Volume79
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 1 2017

Fingerprint

deviant behavior
mismatch
stimulus
Brain
experiment
Mismatch Negativity
Stimulus
Deviance
time series
brain
event
Experiment
Negativity

Keywords

  • Evoked potentials
  • Visual perception

ASJC Scopus subject areas

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

Cite this

Visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) for low- and high-level deviances : A control study. / File, Domonkos; File, Bálint; Bodnár, Flóra; Sulykos, István; Kecskés-Kovács, Krisztina; Czigler, I.

In: Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, Vol. 79, No. 7, 01.10.2017, p. 2153-2170.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

File, Domonkos ; File, Bálint ; Bodnár, Flóra ; Sulykos, István ; Kecskés-Kovács, Krisztina ; Czigler, I. / Visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) for low- and high-level deviances : A control study. In: Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics. 2017 ; Vol. 79, No. 7. pp. 2153-2170.
@article{7bb5094a5ef1482fb43e7b80394337b5,
title = "Visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) for low- and high-level deviances: A control study",
abstract = "The aim of our studies was to separate the effects of violating a sequential rule (genuine visual mismatch negativity; gvMMN) from the decreased activity in response to repeated stimuli (stimulus-specific adaptation; SSA) for simple and more complex stimuli. To accomplish this goal, different control procedures were applied with the aim of finding the correct control for vMMN studies. Event-related brain electric activity (ERPs) was measured in response to nonattended visual stimuli that were presented either in an oddball manner or in various control sequences. To identify the cortical sources of the different processes, the sLORETA inverse solution was applied to the average ERP time series. In Experiment 1, the stimuli were line textures, and the deviancy was different line orientations. SSA fully explained the deviant-related ERP effects (increased posterior negativity in the 105–190 ms range). In Experiments 2 and 3, windmill patterns were used. Infrequent windmill patterns with 12 vanes elicited gvMMN (posterior negativities in the 100–200 and 200–340 ms ranges), whereas in the case of the less complex (six vanes) stimuli, SSA explained the negative deflection in both latency ranges (178–216 and 270–346 ms). In Experiment 3, infrequent stimuli with six vanes elicited deviant-related posterior negativity within the sequence of less complex (four vanes) frequent patterns. We reconcile the discrepant results by proposing that the underlying processes of vMMN are not uniform but depend strongly on the eliciting stimulus and that the complexity difference between the infrequent and frequent stimuli has considerable influence on the deviant-related response.",
keywords = "Evoked potentials, Visual perception",
author = "Domonkos File and B{\'a}lint File and Fl{\'o}ra Bodn{\'a}r and Istv{\'a}n Sulykos and Krisztina Kecsk{\'e}s-Kov{\'a}cs and I. Czigler",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3758/s13414-017-1373-y",
language = "English",
volume = "79",
pages = "2153--2170",
journal = "Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics",
issn = "1943-3921",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) for low- and high-level deviances

T2 - A control study

AU - File, Domonkos

AU - File, Bálint

AU - Bodnár, Flóra

AU - Sulykos, István

AU - Kecskés-Kovács, Krisztina

AU - Czigler, I.

PY - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - The aim of our studies was to separate the effects of violating a sequential rule (genuine visual mismatch negativity; gvMMN) from the decreased activity in response to repeated stimuli (stimulus-specific adaptation; SSA) for simple and more complex stimuli. To accomplish this goal, different control procedures were applied with the aim of finding the correct control for vMMN studies. Event-related brain electric activity (ERPs) was measured in response to nonattended visual stimuli that were presented either in an oddball manner or in various control sequences. To identify the cortical sources of the different processes, the sLORETA inverse solution was applied to the average ERP time series. In Experiment 1, the stimuli were line textures, and the deviancy was different line orientations. SSA fully explained the deviant-related ERP effects (increased posterior negativity in the 105–190 ms range). In Experiments 2 and 3, windmill patterns were used. Infrequent windmill patterns with 12 vanes elicited gvMMN (posterior negativities in the 100–200 and 200–340 ms ranges), whereas in the case of the less complex (six vanes) stimuli, SSA explained the negative deflection in both latency ranges (178–216 and 270–346 ms). In Experiment 3, infrequent stimuli with six vanes elicited deviant-related posterior negativity within the sequence of less complex (four vanes) frequent patterns. We reconcile the discrepant results by proposing that the underlying processes of vMMN are not uniform but depend strongly on the eliciting stimulus and that the complexity difference between the infrequent and frequent stimuli has considerable influence on the deviant-related response.

AB - The aim of our studies was to separate the effects of violating a sequential rule (genuine visual mismatch negativity; gvMMN) from the decreased activity in response to repeated stimuli (stimulus-specific adaptation; SSA) for simple and more complex stimuli. To accomplish this goal, different control procedures were applied with the aim of finding the correct control for vMMN studies. Event-related brain electric activity (ERPs) was measured in response to nonattended visual stimuli that were presented either in an oddball manner or in various control sequences. To identify the cortical sources of the different processes, the sLORETA inverse solution was applied to the average ERP time series. In Experiment 1, the stimuli were line textures, and the deviancy was different line orientations. SSA fully explained the deviant-related ERP effects (increased posterior negativity in the 105–190 ms range). In Experiments 2 and 3, windmill patterns were used. Infrequent windmill patterns with 12 vanes elicited gvMMN (posterior negativities in the 100–200 and 200–340 ms ranges), whereas in the case of the less complex (six vanes) stimuli, SSA explained the negative deflection in both latency ranges (178–216 and 270–346 ms). In Experiment 3, infrequent stimuli with six vanes elicited deviant-related posterior negativity within the sequence of less complex (four vanes) frequent patterns. We reconcile the discrepant results by proposing that the underlying processes of vMMN are not uniform but depend strongly on the eliciting stimulus and that the complexity difference between the infrequent and frequent stimuli has considerable influence on the deviant-related response.

KW - Evoked potentials

KW - Visual perception

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85023771790&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85023771790&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3758/s13414-017-1373-y

DO - 10.3758/s13414-017-1373-y

M3 - Article

C2 - 28710556

AN - SCOPUS:85023771790

VL - 79

SP - 2153

EP - 2170

JO - Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

JF - Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

SN - 1943-3921

IS - 7

ER -