Asymmetry of automatic change detection shown by the visual mismatch negativity: An additional feature is identified faster than missing features

In two experiments, we demonstrated that an asymmetric effect of the brain electric activity that is elicited by nonattended visual stimuli is similar to the one found in responses observed in the performance of visual search tasks. The automatic detection of violated sequential regularities was investigated by measuring the visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) component of event-related brain potentials (ERPs). In Experiment 1, within a sequence of stimulus displays with O characters, infrequently presented Q characters elicited an earlier vMMN than did infrequent O characters within a sequence of Q characters. In Experiment 2, similar asymmetric results emerged if only 16 % of the characters were different within an infrequent display. In both experiments, these stimuli were irrelevant; during the stimulus sequences, participants performed a demanding videogame. We suggest that the underlying match/mismatch and decision processes are similar in the vMMN and in the attention-related visual search paradigm, at least in the case of the stimuli in the present experiments.     

Automatic change detection in vision: Adaptation,memory mismatch,or both? II: Oddball and adaptation effects on event-related potentials

In this study we compared the event-related potentials (ERPs) obtained in two different paradigms: a passive visual oddball paradigm and an adaptation paradigm. The aim of the study was to investigate the relation between the effects of activity decrease following an adaptor (stimulus-specific adaptation) and the effects of an infrequent stimulus within sequences of frequent ones. In Experiment 1, participants were presented with different line textures. The frequent (standard) and rare (deviant) texture elements differed in their orientation. In Experiment 2, windmill pattern stimuli were presented in which the number of vanes differentiated the deviant and standard stimuli. In Experiment 1 the ERP differences elicited between the oddball deviant and the standard were similar to the differences between the ERPs to the nonadapted and adapted stimuli in the adaptation paradigm. In both paradigms the differences appeared as a posterior negativity with the latency of 120–140 ms. This finding demonstrates that the representation of a sequential rule (successive presentation of the standard) and the violation of this rule are not necessary for deviancy effects to emerge. In Experiment 2 (windmill pattern), in the oddball paradigm the difference potentials appeared as a long-lasting negativity. In the adaptation condition, the later part of this negativity (after 200 ms) was absent. We identified the later part of the oddball difference potential as the genuine visual mismatch negativity—that is, an ERP correlate of sequence violations. The latencies of the difference potentials (deviant minus standard) and the endogenous components (P1 and N1) diverged; therefore, the adaptation of these particular ERP components cannot explain the deviancy effect. Accordingly, the sources contributing to the standard-versus-deviant modulations differed from those related to visual adaptation; that is, they generated distinct ERP components.     

Erratum to: Automatic change detection in vision: Adaptation,memory mismatch,or both? II: Oddball and adaptation effects on event-related potentials

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics -