Durk Talsma

A computational account of altered error processing in older age: Dopamine and the error-related negativity

When participants commit errors or receive feedback signaling that they have made an error, a negative brain potential is elicited. According to Holroyd and Coles’s (in press) neurocomputational model of error processing, this error-related negativity (ERN) is elicited when the brain first detects that the consequences of an action are worse than expected. To study age-related changes in error processing, we obtained performance and ERN measures of younger and high-functioning older adults. Experiment 1 demonstrated reduced ERN amplitudes in older adults in the context of otherwise intact brain potentials. This result could not be attributed to uncertainty about the required response in older adults. Experiment 2 revealed impaired performance and reduced response- and feedback-related ERNs of older adults in a probabilistic learning task. These age changes could be simulated by manipulation of a single parameter of the neurocomputational model, this manipulation corresponding to weakened phasic activity of the mesencephalic dopamine system.

Selective Attention and Multisensory Integration: Multiple Phases of Effects on the Evoked Brain Activity

We used event-related potentials (ERPs) to evaluate the role of attention in the integration of visual and auditory features of multisensory objects. This was done by contrasting the ERPs to multisensory stimuli (AV) to the sum of the ERPs to the corresponding auditory-only (A) and visual-only (V) stimuli [i.e., AV vs. (A + V)]. V, A, and VA stimuli were presented in random order to the left and right hemispaces. Subjects attended to a designated side to detect infrequent target stimuli in either modality there. The focus of this report is on the ERPs to the standard (i.e., nontarget) stimuli. We used rapid variable stimulus onset asynchronies (350-650 msec) to mitigate anticipatory activity and included no-stim trials to estimate and remove ERP overlap from residual anticipatory processes and from adjacent stimuli in the sequence. Spatial attention effects on the processing of the unisensory stimuli consisted of a modulation of visual P1 and N1 components (at 90-130 msec and 160-200 msec, respectively) and of the auditory N1 and processing negativity (100-200 msec). Attended versus unattended multisensory ERPs elicited a combination of these effects. Multisensory integration effects consisted of an initial frontal positivity around 100 msec that was larger for attended stimuli. This was followed by three phases of centro-medially distributed effects of integration and/or attention beginning at around 160 msec, and peaking at 190 (scalp positivity), 250 (negativity), and 300-500 msec (positivity) after stimulus onset. These integration effects were larger in amplitude for attended than for unattended stimuli, providing neural evidence that attention can modulate multisensory-integration processes at multiple stages.

Good times for multisensory integration: Effects of the precision of temporal synchrony as revealed by gamma-band oscillations

The synchronous occurrence of the unisensory components of a multisensory stimulus contributes to their successful merging into a coherent perceptual representation. Oscillatory gamma-band responses (GBRs, 30-80 Hz) have been linked to feature integration mechanisms and to multisensory processing, suggesting they may also be sensitive to the temporal alignment of multisensory stimulus components. Here we examined the effects on early oscillatory GBR brain activity of varying the precision of the temporal synchrony of the unisensory components of an audio-visual stimulus. Audio-visual stimuli were presented with stimulus onset asynchronies ranging from -125 to +125 ms. Randomized streams of auditory (A), visual (V), and audio-visual (AV) stimuli were presented centrally while subjects attended to either the auditory or visual modality to detect occasional targets. GBRs to auditory and visual components of multisensory AV stimuli were extracted for five subranges of asynchrony (e.g., A preceded by V by 100+/-25 ms, by 50+/-25 ms, etc.) and compared with GBRs to unisensory control stimuli. Robust multisensory interactions were observed in the early GBRs when the auditory and visual stimuli were presented with the closest synchrony. These effects were found over medial-frontal brain areas after 30-80 ms and over occipital brain areas after 60-120 ms. A second integration effect, possibly reflecting the perceptual separation of the two sensory inputs, was found over occipital areas when auditory inputs preceded visual by 100+/-25 ms. No significant interactions were observed for the other subranges of asynchrony. These results show that the precision of temporal synchrony can have an impact on early cross-modal interactions in human cortex.

Multisensory processing and oscillatory gamma responses: effects of spatial selective attention

Here we describe an EEG study investigating the interactions between multisensory (audio-visual) integration and spatial attention, using oscillatory gamma-band responses (GBRs). The results include a comparison with previously reported event-related potential (ERP) findings from the same paradigm. Unisensory-auditory (A), unisensory-visual (V), and multisensory (AV) stimuli were presented to the left and right hemispaces while subjects attended to a designated side to detect deviant target stimuli in either sensory modality. For attended multisensory stimuli we observed larger evoked GBRs approximately 40–50xa0ms post-stimulus over medial-frontal brain areas compared with those same multisensory stimuli when unattended. Further analysis indicated that the integration effect and its attentional enhancement may be caused in part by a stimulus-triggered phase resetting of ongoing gamma-band responses. Interestingly, no such early interaction effects (<90xa0ms) could be found in the ERP waveforms, suggesting that oscillatory GBRs may be more sensitive than ERPs to these early latency attention effects. Moreover, no GBR attention effects could be found for the unisensory auditory or unisensory visual stimuli, suggesting that attention particularly affects the integrative processing of audiovisual stimuli at these early latencies.

Grabbing attention without knowing : Automatic capture of attention by subliminal spatial cues

The present study shows that an abrupt onset cue that is not consciously perceived can cause attentional facilitation followed by inhibition at the cued location. The observation of this classic biphasic effect of facilitation followed by inhibition of return (IOR) suggests that the subliminal cue captured attention in a purely exogenous way. Since IOR is not observed following endogenous shifts of spatial attention, but is observed following exogenous, stimulus-driven shifts of spatial attention, it is unlikely that top-down control settings or other non-attentional effects played a role. The current findings are interpreted in terms of a neurobiological model of visual awareness.

Nonspatial intermodal selective attention is mediated by sensory brain areas: Evidence from event-related potentials

The present study focuses on the question of whether inter- and intramodal forms of attention are reflected in activation of the same or different brain areas. ERPs were recorded while subjects were presented a random sequence of visual and auditory stimuli. They were instructed to attend to nonspatial attributes of either auditory or visual stimuli and to detect occasional target stimuli within the attended channel. An occipital selection negativity was found for intramodal attention to visual stimuli. Visual intermodal attention was also manifested in a similar negativity. A symmetrical dipole pair in the medial inferior occipital areas could account for the intramodal effects. Dipole pairs for the intermodal attention effect had a slightly more posterior location compared to the dipole pair for the intramodal effect. Auditory intermodal attention was manifested in an early enhanced negativity overlapping with the N1 and P2 components, which was localized using a symmetrical dipole pair in the lateral auditory cortex. The onset of the intramodal attention effect was somewhat later (around 200 ms), and was reflected in a frontal processing negativity. The present results indicate that intra- and intermodal forms of attention were indeed similar for visual stimuli. Auditory data suggest the involvement of multiple brain areas.

Intermodal spatial attention differs between vision and audition: An event-related potential analysis

Subjects were required to attend to a combination of stimulus modality (vision or audition) and location (left or right). Intermodal attention was measured by comparing event-related potentials (ERPs) to visual and auditory stimuli when the modality was relevant or irrelevant, while intramodal (spatial) attention was measured by comparing ERPs to visual and auditory stimuli presented at relevant and irrelevant spatial locations. Intramodal spatial attention was expressed differently in visual and auditory ERPs. When vision was relevant, spatial attention showed a contralateral enhancement of posterior N1 and P2 components and enhancement of parietal P3. When audition was relevant, spatial attention showed a biphasic fronto-central negativity, starting after around 100 ms. The same effects were also present in ERPs to stimuli that were presented in the irrelevant modality. Thus, spatial attention was not completely modality specific. Intermodal attention effects were also expressed differently in vision and audition. Taken together, the obtained ERP patterns of the present study show that stimulus attributes such as modality and location are processed differently in vision and audition.

Faster, more intense! The relation between electrophysiological reflections of attentional orienting, sensory gain control, and speed of responding

Selective visual attention is thought to facilitate goal-directed behavior by biasing the system in advance to favor certain stimuli over others, resulting in their selective processing. The aim of the present study was to gain more insight into the link between control processes that induce a spatial attention bias, target selection processes and speed of responding. To this end, participants performed a spatial cueing task while their brain activity was recorded using EEG. In this task, cues either validly or invalidly predicted the location (left or right) of a forthcoming imperative stimulus or provided no information regarding its location. Cues directing attention in space elicited greater positivity over fronto-central and contralateral posterior scalp regions than non-informative cues starting around 320 ms post cue. Targets appearing at attended vs. unattended locations evoked larger P1 and N1 components, indicating enhanced perceptual processing. Interestingly, detection of targets was fastest in trials with most cue-evoked posterior positivity and in trials with largest target-evoked N1 amplitude. Importantly, the greater the difference in cue-evoked posterior positivity between fast and slow trials, the greater the difference in target-evoked N1 amplitude between fast and slow trials was. Together these findings support neurobiological models of attention that postulate that preparatory attention to a particular location in space can bias the system in advance to favor stimuli presented at the attended location, resulting in a modulation of perceptual processing of incoming stimuli and facilitated goal-directed behavior.

Intermodal attention affects the processing of the temporal alignment of audiovisual stimuli

The temporal asynchrony between inputs to different sensory modalities has been shown to be a critical factor influencing the interaction between such inputs. We used scalp-recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) to investigate the effects of attention on the processing of audiovisual multisensory stimuli as the temporal asynchrony between the auditory and visual inputs varied across the audiovisual integration window (i.e., up to 125xa0ms). Randomized streams of unisensory auditory stimuli, unisensory visual stimuli, and audiovisual stimuli (consisting of the temporally proximal presentation of the visual and auditory stimulus components) were presented centrally while participants attended to either the auditory or the visual modality to detect occasional target stimuli in that modality. ERPs elicited by each of the contributing sensory modalities were extracted by signal processing techniques from the combined ERP waveforms elicited by the multisensory stimuli. This was done for each of the five different 50-ms subranges of stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA: e.g., V precedes A by 125–75xa0ms, by 75–25xa0ms, etc.). The extracted ERPs for the visual inputs of the multisensory stimuli were compared among each other and with the ERPs to the unisensory visual control stimuli, separately when attention was directed to the visual or to the auditory modality. The results showed that the attention effects on the right-hemisphere visual P1 was largest when auditory and visual stimuli were temporally aligned. In contrast, the N1 attention effect was smallest at this latency, suggesting that attention may play a role in the processing of the relative temporal alignment of the constituent parts of multisensory stimuli. At longer latencies an occipital selection negativity for the attended versus unattended visual stimuli was also observed, but this effect did not vary as a function of SOA, suggesting that by that latency a stable representation of the auditory and visual stimulus components has been established.

Working memory processes show different degrees of lateralization: Evidence from event‐related potentials

This study aimed to identify different processes in working memory, using event-related potentials (ERPs) and response times. Abstract polygons were presented for memorization and subsequent recall in a delayed matching-to-sample paradigm. Two polygons were presented bilaterally for memorization and a cue indicated whether one (and if so, which one of the two) or both polygons had to be memorized. A subsequent test figure was presented unilaterally to the left or right visual field and had to be compared with the memorized figure(s). ERP results suggested that memorization takes place in a visual buffer in contralateral posterior brain areas, whereas identification of the test stimulus as a target appears to be mainly a left hemispheric process. Increased response times were found for nontarget test stimuli as compared to targets, and for target test stimuli that were presented contralaterally with respect to the location of the memorized stimulus. In addition, response times were slower when two figures were memorized than when only one was memorized.