4.6 Article

The quest for the genuine visual mismatch negativity (vMMN): Event-related potential indications of deviance detection for low-level visual features

期刊

PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY
卷 57, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/psyp.13576

关键词

adaptation; attention; contrast; EEG; electroencephalography; ERP; event-related potentials; eye movement; Gabor patch; orientation; phase; spatial frequency; vision; visual mismatch negativity; vMMN

资金

  1. Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (DAAD) [91651341]
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG) [SCHR 375/25-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research shows that the visual system monitors the environment for changes. For example, a left-tilted bar, a deviant, that appears after several presentations of a right-tilted bar, standards, elicits a classic visual mismatch negativity (vMMN): greater negativity for deviants than standards in event-related potentials (ERPs) between 100 and 300 ms after onset of the deviant. The classic vMMN is contributed to by adaptation; it can be distinguished from the genuine vMMN that, through use of control conditions, compares standards and deviants that are equally adapted and physically identical. To determine whether the vMMN follows similar principles to the auditory mismatch negativity (MMN), in two experiments we searched for a genuine vMMN from simple, physiologically plausible stimuli that change in fundamental dimensions: orientation, contrast, phase, and spatial frequency. We carefully controlled for attention and eye movements. We found no evidence for the genuine vMMN, despite adequate statistical power. We conclude that either the genuine vMMN is a rather unstable phenomenon that depends on still-to-be-identified experimental parameters, or it is confined to visual stimuli for which monitoring across time is more natural than monitoring over space, such as for high-level features. We also observed an early deviant-related positivity that we propose might reflect earlier predictive processing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据