Unattended visual stimuli do not produce prediction error responses despite being initially encoded
Male, A. G.; O'Shea, R. P.
Show abstract
Prediction error is a basic component of predictive-coding theory of brain processing. According to the theory, each stage of brain processing of sensory information generates a model of the current sensory input; subsequent input is compared against the model and only if there is a mismatch, a prediction error, is further processing performed. Recently, Smout et al. [1] found that a signature of prediction error, the visual (v) mismatch negativity (MMN), for a fundamental property of visual input--its orientation--was absent without attention on the stimuli. This is remarkable because the weight of evidence for MMNs from audition and vision is that they occur without attention. To resolve this discrepancy, we conducted an experiment addressing two alternative explanations for Smout et al.s finding: that it was from a lack of reproducibility or that participants visual systems did not encode the stimuli when attention was on something else. We conducted a similar experiment to Smout et al.s. We showed 21 participants sequences of identically oriented Gabor patches, standards, and, unpredictably, otherwise identical, Gabor patches differing in orientation by {+/-}15{degrees}, {+/-}30{degrees}, and {+/-}60{degrees}, deviants. To test whether participants encoded the orientation of the standards, we varied the numbers of standards preceding a deviant, allowing us to search for a decrease in activity with the number of repetitions of standards--repetition suppression. We diverted participants attention from the oriented stimuli with a central, letter-detection task. We reproduced Smout et al.s finding of no vMMN without attention, strengthening their finding. We also found that our participants showed repetition suppression: they did encode the stimuli pre-attentively. We also found early processing of deviants. We discuss whether this earlier processing of deviants may be why no further processing, in the vMMN time window, occurs.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Periodic attention operates faster during more complex visual search 97%
- Larger error negativity peak amplitudes for accuracy versus speed instructions may reflect more neuro-cognitive alignment, not more intense error processing 95%
- Decoding Numeracy and Literacy in the Human Brain: Insights from MEG and MVPA 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- A 2D Gabor-wavelet baseline model out-performs a 3D surface model in scene-responsive cortex 94%
- A comparison of EEG encoding models using audiovisual stimuli and their unimodal counterparts 94%
- Time-resolved dynamic computational modeling of human EEG recordings reveals gradients of generative mechanisms for the MMN response 93%
"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.