Literature DB >> 17692834

Evidence for the auditory P3a reflecting an automatic process: elicitation during highly-focused continuous visual attention.

Alexandra Muller-Gass1, Margaret Macdonald, Erich Schröger, Lauren Sculthorpe, Kenneth Campbell.   

Abstract

The P3a is an event-related potential (ERP) component believed to reflect an attention-switch to task-irrelevant stimuli or stimulus information. The present study concerns the automaticity of the processes underlying the auditory P3a. More specifically, we investigated whether the auditory P3a is an attention-independent component, that is, whether it can still be elicited under highly-focused selective attention to a different (visual) channel. Furthermore, we examined whether the auditory P3a can be modulated by the demands of the visual diversion task. Subjects performed a continuous visual tracking task that varied in difficulty, based on the number of objects to-be-tracked. Task-irrelevant auditory stimuli were presented at very rapid and random rates concurrently to the visual task. The auditory sequence included rare increments (+10 dB) and decrements (-20 dB) in intensity relative to the frequently-presented standard stimulus. Importantly, the auditory deviant stimuli elicited a significant P3a during the most difficult visual task, when conditions were optimised to prevent attentional slippage to the auditory channel. This finding suggests that the elicitation of the auditory P3a does not require available central capacity, and confirms the automatic nature of the processes underlying this ERP component. Moreover, the difficulty of the visual task did not modulate either the mismatch negativity (MMN) or the P3a but did have an effect on a late (350-400 ms) negativity, an ERP deflection perhaps related to a subsequent evaluation of the auditory change. Together, these results imply that the auditory P3a could reflect a strongly-automatic process, one that does not require and is not modulated by attention.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17692834     DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.07.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Res        ISSN: 0006-8993            Impact factor:   3.252


  27 in total

Review 1.  How human electrophysiology informs psychopharmacology: from bottom-up driven processing to top-down control.

Authors:  J Leon Kenemans; Seppo Kähkönen
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 7.853

2.  The extent of processing of near-hearing threshold stimuli during natural sleep.

Authors:  Kenneth Campbell; Alexandra Muller-Gass
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 5.849

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

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

4.  Pitch, Timbre and Intensity Interdependently Modulate Neural Responses to Salient Sounds.

Authors:  Emine Merve Kaya; Nicolas Huang; Mounya Elhilali
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 3.590

5.  Cross-diagnostic comparison of duration mismatch negativity and P3a in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

Authors:  Carol Jahshan; Jonathan K Wynn; Kristopher I Mathis; Lori L Altshuler; David C Glahn; Michael F Green
Journal:  Bipolar Disord       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 6.744

6.  Competitive Frontoparietal Interactions Mediate Implicit Inferences.

Authors:  Martijn E Wokke; Tony Ro
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  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

8.  Auditory Oddball fMRI in Schizophrenia: Association of Negative Symptoms with Regional Hypoactivation to Novel Distractors.

Authors:  Daniel H Wolf; Bruce I Turetsky; James Loughead; Mark A Elliott; Ramapriyan Pratiwadi; Raquel E Gur; Ruben C Gur
Journal:  Brain Imaging Behav       Date:  2008-06-01       Impact factor: 3.978

9.  Inattentional Deafness: Visual Load Leads to Time-Specific Suppression of Auditory Evoked Responses.

Authors:  Katharine Molloy; Timothy D Griffiths; Maria Chait; Nilli Lavie
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Single-trial decoding of auditory novelty responses facilitates the detection of residual consciousness.

Authors:  J R King; F Faugeras; A Gramfort; A Schurger; I El Karoui; J D Sitt; B Rohaut; C Wacongne; E Labyt; T Bekinschtein; L Cohen; L Naccache; S Dehaene
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-07-13       Impact factor: 6.556

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.