The neural signature of magnitude integration between time and numerosity
Togoli, I.; Fornaciai, M.; Visibelli, E.; Piazza, M.; Bueti, D.
Show abstract
Magnitude dimensions such as time and numerosity are fundamental components of our visual experience, allowing us to understand the environment and interact with it. Different magnitudes are however not processed independently from each other, but show a relationship whereby the perception of one dimension depends on the others ("magnitude integration"). In this study, we use electroencephalography (EEG) to address whether such integration may arise from a shared brain processing stage where different dimensions are integrated together, or from independent parallel processes interfering with each other. In the experiment, participants judged either the average numerosity or duration of dynamic dot-array stimuli concurrently modulated in both dimensions. First, the behavioural results show a magnitude integration effect in both tasks, with duration affecting the judgement of numerosity and vice versa. The EEG results further show that both numerosity and duration significantly modulate event-related potentials at several distinct latencies. Crucially, however, we identified a significant interaction between numerosity and duration emerging in a specific latency window (360-460 ms) irrespective of the task performed by participants. In this latency window, the modulation of ERPs provided by the interfering magnitude dimension can be predicted by the strength of the behavioural bias. Our results thus support the idea of different magnitude dimensions converging onto a shared perceptual processing stage mediating their integration. Overall, our results demonstrate a clear electrophysiological signature of magnitude integration between numerosity and time, and provide new evidence for a shared representational system encompassing different magnitude dimensions.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The self-face captures attention without consciousness: evidence from the N2pc ERP component analysis 97%
- Repetition Attenuates the Influence of Recency on Recognition Memory: Behavioral and Electrophysiological Evidence 96%
- The P600 and P3 ERP components are linked to the task-evoked pupillary response as a correlate of norepinephrine activity 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Interaction of spatial attention and the associated reward value of audiovisual stimuli 97%
- Linguistic and attentional factors -not statistical regularities- contribute to word-selective neural responses with FPVS-oddball paradigms 97%
- Maintenance of Bound or Independent Features in Visual Working Memory is Taskdependent 97%
Similar papers in this journal
- Lateralized alpha activity and slow potentials shifts over visual cortex track the time course of both endogenous and exogenous orienting of attention 97%
- Early and late evoked brain responsesdifferentially reflect feature encoding andperception in the flash-lag illusion 97%
- Effects of awareness and task relevance on neurocomputational models of mismatch negativity generation 97%
Similar papers in this journal
- Neural repetition suppression modulates time perception: evidence from electrophysiology and pupillometry 97%
- Intelligence and Visual Mismatch Negativity: Is Pre-Attentive Visual Discrimination Related to General Cognitive Ability? 97%
- Suppressive interactions between nearby stimuli in visual cortex reflect crowding 97%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cross-modal orienting of exogenous attention results in visual-cortical facilitation, not suppression 97%
- Neural Sources Underlying Visual Word Form Processing as Revealed by Steady State Visual Evoked Potentials (SSVEP) 96%
- Larger error negativity peak amplitudes for accuracy versus speed instructions may reflect more neuro-cognitive alignment, not more intense error processing 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.