Back

Rhythmic Sampling and Competition of Target and Distractor in a Motion Detection Task

Xiong, C.; Petro, N.; Bo, K.; Cui, L.; Keil, A.; Ding, M.

2025-02-05 neuroscience
10.1101/2024.09.26.615254 bioRxiv
Show abstract

It has been suggested that the visual system samples attended information rhythmically. Does rhythmic sampling also apply to distracting information? How do attended information and distracting information compete temporally for neural representations? We recorded electroencephalography (EEG) from participants who detected instances of coherent motion in a random dot kinematogram (RDK; the target), overlayed on different categories (pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant) of affective images from the International Affective System (IAPS) (the distractor). The moving dots were flickered at 4.29 Hz whereas the IAPS pictures were flickered at 6 Hz. The time course of EEG spectral power at 4.29 Hz was taken to index the temporal dynamics of target processing. The spatial pattern of the EEG spectral power at 6 Hz was similarly extracted and subjected to a moving-window MVPA decoding analysis to index the temporal dynamics of processing pleasant, neutral, or unpleasant distractor pictures. We found that (1) both target processing and distractor processing exhibited rhythmicity at [~]1 Hz and (2) the phase difference between the two rhythmic time courses were related to task performance, i.e., relative phase closer to {pi} predicted a higher rate of coherent motion detection whereas relative phase closer to 0 predicted a lower rate of coherent motion detection. These results suggest that (1) in a target-distractor scenario, both attended and distracting information were sampled rhythmically and (2) the more target sampling and distractor sampling were separated in time within a sampling cycle, the less distraction effects were observed, both at the neural and the behavioral level.

Published in eLife (predicted rank #11) · training set

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.