Literature DB >> 10666557

Primary task demands modulate P3a amplitude.

T Harmony1, J Bernal, T Fernández, J Silva-Pereyra, A Fernández-Bouzas, E Marosi, M Rodríguez, A Reyes.   

Abstract

Auditory event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded from 10 subjects in two different conditions: (1) subjects were required to reorder five visually presented letters in order to form a word and provide a verbal response (task condition); (2) subjects were presented with a control stimulus with the same physical characteristics as the experimental stimulus, but containing just one type of letter (i.e., AAAAA). Subjects had to verbally respond to such stimuli by saying "A" (control condition). Tones of 1000 Hz (standard) and 1050 Hz (deviant) were also presented to the subjects in a 85%-15% probability paradigm 2 s before, during and 8 s after the presentation of the visual stimuli. Recordings were obtained from Fpz, Fz, Cz and Pz vs. linked ears. Auditory ERPs to the auditory stimuli after the presentation of the visual letter string and during the performance of the task were averaged for the standard and deviant tones in both conditions. Only correct responses were considered for the averages. The N100 was affected by stimulus type (standard vs. deviant) but not by condition (task vs. control); however, larger P3a waves were observed during the control than during the task condition. No significant differences between conditions were observed in the mismatch negativity (MMN) latency range. These results suggest that primary task demands modulate involuntary attention processing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10666557     DOI: 10.1016/s0926-6410(99)00044-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res        ISSN: 0926-6410


  13 in total

1.  Cortical potentials in an auditory oddball task reflect individual differences in working memory capacity.

Authors:  Kate A Yurgil; Edward J Golob
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2013-09-09       Impact factor: 4.016

2.  The electrophysiological effect of working memory load on involuntary attention in an auditory-visual distraction paradigm: an ERP study.

Authors:  Jie-Yu Lv; Ting Wang; Jiang Qiu; Si-Hai Feng; Shen Tu; Dong-Tao Wei
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-07-14       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 3.  Auditory attentional capture: implicit and explicit approaches.

Authors:  Polly Dalton; Robert W Hughes
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2014-03-19

4.  Socio-emotionally significant experience and children's processing of irrelevant auditory stimuli.

Authors:  Alice C Schermerhorn; John E Bates; Aina Puce; Dennis L Molfese
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 2.997

5.  Demand and modality of directed attention modulate "pre-attentive" sensory processes in schizophrenia patients and nonpsychiatric controls.

Authors:  Anthony J Rissling; Sung-Hyouk Park; Jared W Young; Michelle B Rissling; Catherine A Sugar; Joyce Sprock; Daniel J Mathias; Marlena Pela; Richard F Sharp; David L Braff; Gregory A Light
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2013-03-11       Impact factor: 4.939

6.  The advantage of ambiguity? Enhanced neural responses to multi-stable percepts correlate with the degree of perceived instability.

Authors:  Benjamin J Dyson
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2011-08-23       Impact factor: 3.169

7.  Electrophysiological, cognitive and clinical profiles of at-risk mental state: The longitudinal Minds in Transition (MinT) study.

Authors:  Rebbekah J Atkinson; W Ross Fulham; Patricia T Michie; Philip B Ward; Juanita Todd; Helen Stain; Robyn Langdon; Renate Thienel; Georgie Paulik; Gavin Cooper; Ulrich Schall
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Visual Task Demands and the Auditory Mismatch Negativity: An Empirical Study and a Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Stefan Wiens; Malina Szychowska; Mats E Nilsson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Task-Irrelevant Novel Sounds have Antithetical Effects on Visual Target Processing in Young and Old Adults.

Authors:  Erich S Tusch; Nicole C Feng; Phillip J Holcomb; Kirk R Daffner
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2017-10-31       Impact factor: 5.750

10.  Visual Perceptual Load Does Not Affect the Frequency Mismatch Negativity.

Authors:  Stefan Wiens; Erik van Berlekom; Malina Szychowska; Rasmus Eklund
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-08-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.