Literature DB >> 29572648

The approach of visual stimuli influences expectations about stimulus types for subsequent somatosensory stimuli.

Tsukasa Kimura1, Jun'ichi Katayama2,3.   

Abstract

It is known that perceiving a visual stimulus influences the processing of subsequent somatosensory stimuli. In particular, an emotion-laden visual stimulus influences the processing of types of subsequent somatosensory stimuli. Additionally, visual stimuli approaching the body facilitate spatial and temporal expectations about subsequent somatosensory stimuli even if the visual stimuli do not contain emotional information; however, it remains unclear whether the approach of non-emotional visual stimuli also influences such expectations. To investigate whether the approach of non-emotional visual stimuli influences expectations about types of subsequent somatosensory stimuli, event-related brain potentials (ERPs) during a simple reaction time task using somatosensory stimuli were recorded. Specific colors of visual stimuli and types of somatosensory stimuli were combined to form congruent and incongruent trials. In the congruent trials, specific combinations (e.g., blue color and a single pulse) were presented (80% of the trials), whereas in the incongruent trials, different combinations (e.g., blue color and a train pulse) were presented (20% of the trials). Under the approach condition, the visual stimuli sequentially approached the wrist to which the somatosensory stimulus was presented. In the neutral condition, the visual stimuli did not approach. The results of the ERP analysis showed that incongruence evoked a P3 response with larger amplitude under the approach condition than under the neutral condition. This result suggests that visual stimuli that approach the body function as clues regarding the types of subsequent somatosensory stimuli even if the visual stimuli do not contain emotional information.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Expectation; Multimodal interaction; Stimulus type; Visuotactile processing

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29572648     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-018-5244-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  25 in total

1.  Observations on active touch.

Authors:  J J GIBSON
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1962-11       Impact factor: 8.934

Review 2.  Crossmodal spatial attention.

Authors:  Charles Spence
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 5.691

3.  Affective modulation of somatosensory-evoked potentials elicited by tactile stimulation.

Authors:  Pedro Montoya; Carolina Sitges
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2005-12-20       Impact factor: 3.252

Review 4.  Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b.

Authors:  John Polich
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-06-18       Impact factor: 3.708

5.  Stimulus context determines P3a and P3b.

Authors:  J Katayama; J Polich
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 4.016

6.  Rate effect and mismatch responses in the somatosensory system: ERP-recordings in humans.

Authors:  J Kekoni; H Hämäläinen; M Saarinen; J Gröhn; K Reinikainen; A Lehtokoski; R Näätänen
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  1997-08-22       Impact factor: 3.251

7.  On quantifying surprise: the variation of event-related potentials with subjective probability.

Authors:  C C Duncan-Johnson; E Donchin
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1977-09       Impact factor: 4.016

8.  Approach of visual stimuli modulates spatial expectations for subsequent somatosensory stimuli.

Authors:  Tsukasa Kimura; Jun'ichi Katayama
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2015-04-16       Impact factor: 2.997

9.  Presidential address, 1980. Surprise!...Surprise?

Authors:  E Donchin
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1981-09       Impact factor: 4.016

10.  Feeling Touched: Emotional Modulation of Somatosensory Potentials to Interpersonal Touch.

Authors:  N Ravaja; V Harjunen; I Ahmed; G Jacucci; M M Spapé
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  2 in total

1.  Congruency of intervening events and self-induced action influence prediction of final results.

Authors:  Tsukasa Kimura; Jun'ichi Katayama
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-01-29       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Approach of visual stimuli facilitates the prediction of tactile events and suppresses beta band oscillations around the primary somatosensory area.

Authors:  Tsukasa Kimura
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 1.703

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.