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

• Published in: Attention, perception & psychophysics perception & psychophysics, 2017-11, Vol.79 (8), p.2396-2411
• Main Authors: Bodnár, Flóra, File, Domonkos, Sulykos, István, Kecskés-Kovács, Krisztina, Czigler, István
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adaptation; Adaptation, Physiological - physiology; Behavioral Science and Psychology; Coding; Cognitive Psychology; Electroencephalography; Evoked Potentials, Visual - physiology; Experiments; Eyes & eyesight; Feedback (Response); Female; Humans; Male; Memory; Neurosciences; Orientation; Paradigms; Photic Stimulation - methods; Probability; Psychology; Repetition; Stimuli; Studies; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1943-3921; 1943-393X
• DOI: 10.3758/s13414-017-1402-x

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.