Brain signatures of surprise in EEG and MEG data
Mousavi, Z.; Kiani, M. M.; Aghajan, H.
Show abstract
The brain is constantly anticipating the future of sensory inputs based on past experiences. When new sensory data is different from predictions shaped by recent trends, neural signals are generated to report this surprise. Existing models for quantifying surprise are based on an ideal observer assumption operating under one of the three definitions of surprise set forth as the Shannon, Bayesian, and Confidence-corrected surprise. In this paper, we analyze both visual and auditory EEG and auditory MEG signals recorded during oddball tasks to examine which temporal components in these signals are sufficient to decode the brains surprise based on each of these three definitions. We found that for both recording systems the Shannon surprise is always significantly better decoded than the Bayesian surprise regardless of the sensory modality and the selected temporal features used for decoding. Author summaryA regression model is proposed for decoding the level of the brains surprise in response to sensory sequences using selected temporal components of recorded EEG and MEG data. Three surprise quantification definitions (Shannon, Bayesian, and Confidence-corrected surprise) are compared in offering decoding power. Four different regimes for selecting temporal samples of EEG and MEG data are used to evaluate which part of the recorded data may contain signatures that represent the brains surprise in terms of offering a high decoding power. We found that both the middle and late components of the EEG response offer strong decoding power for surprise while the early components are significantly weaker in decoding surprise. In the MEG response, we found that the middle components have the highest decoding power while the late components offer moderate decoding powers. When using a single temporal sample for decoding surprise, samples of the middle segment possess the highest decoding power. Shannon surprise is always better decoded than the other definitions of surprise for all the four temporal feature selection regimes. Similar superiority for Shannon surprise is observed for the EEG and MEG data across the entire range of temporal sample regimes used in our analysis.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Pumping Up your Predictive Power for Cognitive State Detection with the Proper GAINS 97%
- Harmonized-Multinational qEEG Norms (HarMNqEEG) 96%
- Stimulus-aware spatial filtering for single-trial neural response and temporal response function estimation in high-density EEG with applications in auditory research 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- The visual cortex produces gamma band echo in response to broadband visual flicker 96%
- Alpha blocking and 1/fβ spectral scaling in resting EEG can be accounted for by a sum of damped alpha band oscillatory processes 96%
- Time-resolved dynamic computational modeling of human EEG recordings reveals gradients of generative mechanisms for the MMN response 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Estimating Multiple Latencies in the Auditory System from Auditory Steady-State Responses on a Single EEG Channel 96%
- Automated methodology for optimal selection of the minimum electrode subset for accurate EEG source estimation based on Genetic Algorithm optimization 95%
- Decoding Numeracy and Literacy in the Human Brain: Insights from MEG and MVPA 95%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.