在处理视觉输入的时间模式时区分期望效应和注意效应

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES Brain and Cognition Pub Date : 2024-10-25 DOI:10.1016/j.bandc.2024.106228
Joann Huizhen Tang , Selina S. Solomon , Adam Kohn , Elyse S. Sussman
{"title":"在处理视觉输入的时间模式时区分期望效应和注意效应","authors":"Joann Huizhen Tang ,&nbsp;Selina S. Solomon ,&nbsp;Adam Kohn ,&nbsp;Elyse S. Sussman","doi":"10.1016/j.bandc.2024.106228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The current study investigated how the brain sets up expectations from stimulus regularities by evaluating the neural responses to expectations driven implicitly (by the stimuli themselves) and explicitly (by task demands). How the brain uses prior information to create expectations and what role attention plays in forming or holding predictions to efficiently respond to incoming sensory information is still debated. We presented temporal patterns of visual input while recording EEG under two different task conditions. When the patterns were task-relevant and pattern recognition was required to perform the button press task, three different event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were elicited, each reflecting a different aspect of pattern expectation. In contrast, when the patterns were task-irrelevant, none of the neural indicators of pattern recognition or pattern violation detection were observed to the same temporally structured sequences. Thus, results revealed a clear distinction between expectation and attention that was prompted by task requirements. These results provide complementary pieces of evidence that implicit exposure to a stimulus pattern may not be sufficient to drive neural effects of expectations that lead to predictive error responses. Task-driven attentional control can dissociate from stimulus-driven expectations, to effectively minimize distracting information and maximize attentional regulation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55331,"journal":{"name":"Brain and Cognition","volume":"182 ","pages":"Article 106228"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Distinguishing expectation and attention effects in processing temporal patterns of visual input\",\"authors\":\"Joann Huizhen Tang ,&nbsp;Selina S. Solomon ,&nbsp;Adam Kohn ,&nbsp;Elyse S. Sussman\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bandc.2024.106228\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The current study investigated how the brain sets up expectations from stimulus regularities by evaluating the neural responses to expectations driven implicitly (by the stimuli themselves) and explicitly (by task demands). How the brain uses prior information to create expectations and what role attention plays in forming or holding predictions to efficiently respond to incoming sensory information is still debated. We presented temporal patterns of visual input while recording EEG under two different task conditions. When the patterns were task-relevant and pattern recognition was required to perform the button press task, three different event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were elicited, each reflecting a different aspect of pattern expectation. In contrast, when the patterns were task-irrelevant, none of the neural indicators of pattern recognition or pattern violation detection were observed to the same temporally structured sequences. Thus, results revealed a clear distinction between expectation and attention that was prompted by task requirements. These results provide complementary pieces of evidence that implicit exposure to a stimulus pattern may not be sufficient to drive neural effects of expectations that lead to predictive error responses. Task-driven attentional control can dissociate from stimulus-driven expectations, to effectively minimize distracting information and maximize attentional regulation.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55331,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brain and Cognition\",\"volume\":\"182 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106228\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brain and Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278262624001052\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278262624001052","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前的研究通过评估神经对隐性(由刺激本身)和显性(由任务需求)驱动的预期的反应,研究了大脑如何从刺激的规律性中建立预期。大脑如何利用先前的信息来建立预期,以及注意力在形成或保持预测以有效响应传入的感官信息中扮演什么角色,这些问题仍存在争议。在两种不同的任务条件下,我们一边记录脑电图,一边呈现视觉输入的时间模式。当图案与任务相关且需要识别图案才能完成按键任务时,会引发三种不同的事件相关脑电位(ERP),每种电位都反映了图案预期的不同方面。相反,当模式与任务无关时,在相同的时间结构序列中,没有观察到模式识别或模式违规检测的神经指标。因此,研究结果表明,在任务要求的推动下,预期和注意之间存在明显的区别。这些结果提供了互补的证据,表明内隐暴露于刺激模式可能不足以驱动预期的神经效应,从而导致预测性错误反应。任务驱动的注意控制可以从刺激驱动的预期中分离出来,从而有效地减少干扰信息,最大限度地提高注意调节能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Distinguishing expectation and attention effects in processing temporal patterns of visual input
The current study investigated how the brain sets up expectations from stimulus regularities by evaluating the neural responses to expectations driven implicitly (by the stimuli themselves) and explicitly (by task demands). How the brain uses prior information to create expectations and what role attention plays in forming or holding predictions to efficiently respond to incoming sensory information is still debated. We presented temporal patterns of visual input while recording EEG under two different task conditions. When the patterns were task-relevant and pattern recognition was required to perform the button press task, three different event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were elicited, each reflecting a different aspect of pattern expectation. In contrast, when the patterns were task-irrelevant, none of the neural indicators of pattern recognition or pattern violation detection were observed to the same temporally structured sequences. Thus, results revealed a clear distinction between expectation and attention that was prompted by task requirements. These results provide complementary pieces of evidence that implicit exposure to a stimulus pattern may not be sufficient to drive neural effects of expectations that lead to predictive error responses. Task-driven attentional control can dissociate from stimulus-driven expectations, to effectively minimize distracting information and maximize attentional regulation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Brain and Cognition
Brain and Cognition 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Brain and Cognition is a forum for the integration of the neurosciences and cognitive sciences. B&C publishes peer-reviewed research articles, theoretical papers, case histories that address important theoretical issues, and historical articles into the interaction between cognitive function and brain processes. The focus is on rigorous studies of an empirical or theoretical nature and which make an original contribution to our knowledge about the involvement of the nervous system in cognition. Coverage includes, but is not limited to memory, learning, emotion, perception, movement, music or praxis in relationship to brain structure or function. Published articles will typically address issues relating some aspect of cognitive function to its neurological substrates with clear theoretical import, formulating new hypotheses or refuting previously established hypotheses. Clinical papers are welcome if they raise issues of theoretical importance or concern and shed light on the interaction between brain function and cognitive function. We welcome review articles that clearly contribute a new perspective or integration, beyond summarizing the literature in the field; authors of review articles should make explicit where the contribution lies. We also welcome proposals for special issues on aspects of the relation between cognition and the structure and function of the nervous system. Such proposals can be made directly to the Editor-in-Chief from individuals interested in being guest editors for such collections.
期刊最新文献
The brain under pressure: Exploring neurophysiological responses to cognitive stress Early environmental influences on brain development and executive function. Facing healthy and pathological aging: A systematic review of fMRI task-based studies to understand the neural mechanisms of cognitive reserve One hour walk improves inhibitory control and increases prefrontal cortex activation Functional connectivity in procrastination and emotion regulation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1