Local Interactions between Steady-State Visually Evoked Potentials at Nearby Flickering Frequencies

Steady-state visually evoked potentials (SSVEPs) are widely used to index top-down cognitive processing in human electroencephalogram (EEG) studies. Typically, two stimuli flickering at different temporal frequencies (TFs) are presented, each producing a distinct response in the EEG at its flicker frequency. However, how SSVEP responses in EEGs are modulated in the presence of a competing flickering stimulus just because of sensory interactions is not well understood. We have previously shown in local field potentials (LFPs) recorded from awake monkeys that when two overlapping full-screen gratings are counterphased at different TFs, there is an asymmetric SSVEP response suppression, with greater suppression from lower TFs, which further depends on the relative orientations of the gratings (stronger suppression and asymmetry for parallel compared with orthogonal gratings). Here, we first confirmed these effects in both male and female human EEG recordings. Then, we mapped the response suppression of one stimulus (target) by a competing stimulus (mask) over a much wider range than the previous study. Surprisingly, we found that the suppression was not stronger at low frequencies in general, but systematically varied depending on the target TF, indicating local interactions between the two competing stimuli. These results were confirmed in both human EEG and monkey LFP and electrocorticogram (ECoG) data. Our results show that sensory interactions between multiple SSVEPs are more complex than shown previously and are influenced by both local and global factors, underscoring the need to cautiously interpret the results of studies involving SSVEP paradigms.

Automated summary

This study investigates the modulatory effects of competing stimuli on SSVEP responses. The results show that the suppression of target stimuli by competing stimuli is not fixed at low frequencies, but systematically varies depending on the frequency of the target stimuli, indicating local interactions between the two stimuli. These findings underscore the need to interpret results of SSVEP studies cautiously.