Literature DB >> 31028925

The latency of a visual evoked potential tracks the onset of decision making.

Michael D Nunez1, Aishwarya Gosai2, Joachim Vandekerckhove3, Ramesh Srinivasan4.   

Abstract

Encoding of a sensory stimulus is believed to be the first step in perceptual decision making. Previous research has shown that electrical signals recorded from the human brain track evidence accumulation during perceptual decision making (Gold and Shadlen, 2007; O'Connell et al., 2012; Philiastides et al., 2014). In this study we directly tested the hypothesis that the latency of the N200 recorded by EEG (a negative peak occurring between 150 and 275 ms after stimulus presentation in human participants) reflects the visual encoding time (VET) required for completion of figure-ground segregation before evidence accumulation. We show that N200 latencies vary across individuals, are modulated by external visual noise, and increase response time by x milliseconds when they increase by x milliseconds, reflecting a linear regression slope of 1. Simulations of cognitive decision-making theory show that variation in human response times not related to evidence accumulation (non-decision time; NDT), including VET, are tracked by the fastest response times. Evidence that VET is tracked by N200 latencies was found by fitting a linear model between trial-averaged N200 latencies and the 10th percentiles of response times, a model-independent estimate of NDT. Fitting a novel neuro-cognitive model of decision making also yielded a slope of 1 between N200 latency and model-estimated NDT in multiple visual noise conditions, indicating that N200 latencies track the completion of visual encoding and the onset of evidence accumulation. The N200 waveforms were localized to the cortical surface at distributed temporal and extrastriate locations, consistent with a distributed network engaged in figure-ground segregation of the target stimulus. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decision making; Diffusion models; EEG; Figure-ground segregation; Hierarchical Bayesian methods; Visual evoked potentials (VEP)

Year:  2019        PMID: 31028925     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.04.052

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  6 in total

1.  Temporal Expectation Hastens Decision Onset But Does Not Affect Evidence Quality.

Authors:  Ruud L van den Brink; Peter R Murphy; Kobe Desender; Nicole de Ru; Sander Nieuwenhuis
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Surprising Threats Accelerate Conscious Perception.

Authors:  Jessica McFadyen; Naotsugu Tsuchiya; Jason B Mattingley; Marta I Garrido
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 3.617

3.  Timing of readiness potentials reflect a decision-making process in the human brain.

Authors:  Kitty K Lui; Michael D Nunez; Jessica M Cassidy; Joachim Vandekerckhove; Steven C Cramer; Ramesh Srinivasan
Journal:  Comput Brain Behav       Date:  2020-11-25

4.  Imperfect integration: Congruency between multiple sensory sources modulates decision-making processes.

Authors:  Dominik Krzemiński; Jiaxiang Zhang
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 2.157

5.  Cognitive and White-Matter Compartment Models Reveal Selective Relations between Corticospinal Tract Microstructure and Simple Reaction Time.

Authors:  Esin Karahan; Alison G Costigan; Kim S Graham; Andrew D Lawrence; Jiaxiang Zhang
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Perceptual Decision-Making in Children: Age-Related Differences and EEG Correlates.

Authors:  Catherine Manning; Eric-Jan Wagenmakers; Anthony M Norcia; Gaia Scerif; Udo Boehm
Journal:  Comput Brain Behav       Date:  2020-06-19
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.