Literature DB >> 22579858

Effects of overt and covert attention on the steady-state visual evoked potential.

Sabrina Walter1, Cliodhna Quigley, Søren K Andersen, Matthias M Mueller.   

Abstract

Flickering stimuli evoke an oscillatory brain response with the same frequency as the driving stimulus, the so-called steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP). SSVEPs are robust brain signals whose amplitudes are enhanced with attention and thus play a major role in the development and use of non-invasive Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs). We compared the modulation of SSVEP amplitudes when subjects directly gazed at a flickering array of static dots (overt attention) to when they covertly shifted attention to the dots keeping their eyes at central fixation. A discrimination task was performed at the attended location to ensure that subjects shifted attention as instructed. Horizontal eye movements (allowed in overt attention but to be avoided in covert attention) were monitored by the horizontal electrooculogram. Subjects' behavioural performance was significantly reduced in covert attention compared to overt attention. Correspondingly, attentional modulation of SSVEP amplitudes by overt attention was larger in magnitude than for covert attention. Overt attention also changed the topographical distribution of SSVEP amplitudes on the scalp. Stimuli elicited the largest amplitudes at central occipital electrodes when they were overtly attended and at contralateral parieto-occipital sites when they were covertly attended. Accordingly, source analysis revealed clear centrally located sources in early visual areas in overt attention, regardless of the attended visual hemifield. Taken together these results affirm that overt and covert attention have qualitatively and quantitatively different effects on SSVEP responses as well as on task performance. Moreover, our results suggest that navigating SSVEP-BCIs with overt attention is more reliable and highlight some of the challenges in developing BCIs for patients who have lost the ability to move their eyes.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22579858     DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.05.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosci Lett        ISSN: 0304-3940            Impact factor:   3.046


  17 in total

1.  Brain-computer interface: current and emerging rehabilitation applications.

Authors:  Janis J Daly; Jane E Huggins
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.966

2.  Plug&Play Brain-Computer Interfaces for effective Active and Assisted Living control.

Authors:  Niccolò Mora; Ilaria De Munari; Paolo Ciampolini; José Del R Millán
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Reliance on visual attention during visuomotor adaptation: an SSVEP study.

Authors:  Eva-Maria Reuter; Jeffery Bednark; Ross Cunnington
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Novel hold-release functionality in a P300 brain-computer interface.

Authors:  R E Alcaide-Aguirre; J E Huggins
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2014-11-07       Impact factor: 5.379

5.  Examining sensory ability, feature matching and assessment-based adaptation for a brain-computer interface using the steady-state visually evoked potential.

Authors:  Jonathan S Brumberg; Anh Nguyen; Kevin M Pitt; Sean D Lorenz
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol       Date:  2018-01-31

6.  Neural Differences between Covert and Overt Attention Studied using EEG with Simultaneous Remote Eye Tracking.

Authors:  Louisa V Kulke; Janette Atkinson; Oliver Braddick
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-11-23       Impact factor: 3.169

7.  An objective neural signature of rapid perspective taking.

Authors:  Alexy A Beck; Bruno Rossion; Dana Samson
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 3.436

8.  Tradeoff between User Experience and BCI Classification Accuracy with Frequency Modulated Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials.

Authors:  Alexander M Dreyer; Christoph S Herrmann; Jochem W Rieger
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2017-07-26       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Is Attentional Resource Allocation Across Sensory Modalities Task-Dependent?

Authors:  Basil Wahn; Peter König
Journal:  Adv Cogn Psychol       Date:  2017-03-31

10.  Unexpected Sounds Nonselectively Inhibit Active Visual Stimulus Representations.

Authors:  Cheol Soh; Jan R Wessel
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 5.357

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.