Krisztina Kecskés-Kovács

Visual mismatch negativity is sensitive to symmetry as a perceptual category

We investigated the sensitivity of visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) to an abstract and non‐semantic category, vertical mirror symmetry. Event‐related potentials (ERPs) elicited by random and symmetric square patterns, delivered in passive oddball paradigm (participants played a video game), were recorded. In one of the conditions, symmetric patterns were frequent (standard) stimuli and the random patterns were infrequent (deviant) stimuli; in the other condition, the probabilities were reversed. We compared the ERPs elicited by symmetric stimuli as deviants and as standards, and, similarly, the ERPs elicited by the random deviants and random standards. As the difference between the ERPs elicited by random deviant and random standard stimuli, a posterior negativity emerged in two latency ranges (112–120 and 284–292 ms). These negativities were considered to be vMMN components. We suggest that the two vMMN components are organised in cascade error signals. However, there was no significant difference between the ERPs elicited by symmetric deviants and those elicited by symmetric standards. The emergence of vMMN in response to the deviant random stimuli is considered to be a deviation of a perceptual category (in the symmetric standard sequence presented). Accordingly, random stimuli acquired no perceptual category; for this reason, the symmetric deviant (in the random standard sequence presented) elicited no vMMN. The results show that the memory system underlying vMMN is capable of coding perceptual categories such as bilateral symmetry, even if the stimulus patterns are unrelated to the ongoing behavior.

Is it a face of a woman or a man? Visual mismatch negativity is sensitive to gender category

The present study investigated whether gender information for human faces was represented by the predictive mechanism indexed by the visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) event-related brain potential (ERP). While participants performed a continuous size-change-detection task, random sequences of cropped faces were presented in the background, in an oddball setting: either various female faces were presented infrequently among various male faces, or vice versa. In Experiment 1 the inter-stimulus-interval (ISI) was 400 ms, while in Experiment 2 the ISI was 2250 ms. The ISI difference had only a small effect on the P1 component, however the subsequent negativity (N1/N170) was larger and more widely distributed at longer ISI, showing different aspects of stimulus processing. As deviant-minus-standard ERP difference, a parieto-occipital negativity (vMMN) emerged in the 200–500 ms latency range (~350 ms peak latency in both experiments). We argue that regularity of gender on the photographs is automatically registered, and the violation of the gender category is reflected by the vMMN. In conclusion the results can be interpreted as evidence for the automatic activity of a predictive brain mechanism, in case of an ecologically valid category.

Asymmetric effect of automatic deviant detection: The effect of familiarity in visual mismatch negativity.

The visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) component is regarded as a prediction error signal elicited by events violating the sequential regularities of environmental stimulation. The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of familiarity on the vMMN. Stimuli were patterns comprised of familiar (N) or unfamiliar (И) letters. In a passive oddball paradigm, letters (N and И) were presented as either standard or deviant in separate conditions. VMMNs emerged in both conditions; peak latency of vMMN was shorter to the И deviant compared to the vMMN elicited by the N deviant. To test the orientation-specific effect of the oblique lines on the vMMN, we introduced a control experiment. In the control experiment, the patterns were constructed solely from oblique lines, identical to the oblique lines of the N and И stimuli. Contrary to the first experiment, there was no significant difference between the vMNNs elicited by the two orientations. Therefore, the differences in vMMNs to И and N deviants are not attributable to the physical difference between the И and N stimuli. Consequently, the vMMN is sensitive to the familiarity of the stimuli. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled SI: Prediction and Attention.

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.