Neurophysiology

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 243–248 | Cite as

Effect of the Orientation Difference on Components of Visual Event-Related Potentials

Article
First Online:
Received:
  • 56 Downloads

Changes in the components of visual event-related potentials (VERPs) depending on the difficulty of the identification counting tasks (“coarse” and “fine”) were studied in healthy humans. The basic finding is that much greater changes in the VERPs waves were observed within a 5 to 15 deg range than those within the range of 15 to 90 deg. The amplitude of the second sensory component (P2), the latencies of both sensory components, and that of the second cognitive one increased with increase in the task difficulty, while the amplitudes of both cognitive components N2/P3 decreased. Additionally, small changes in the task difficulty affected the attentional effort and modulated the N1 amplitude and P2 latency. These VERP changes are considered an electrophysiological correlate of the psychophysical data when the “label” of an activated orientation-selective channel is sufficient for “coarse” discrimination, and an additional computational process comparing the responses of the activated channels makes discrimination possible in “fine” discrimination.

Keywords

sinusoidal gratings orientation identification visual ERPs (VERPs) sensory-mental task 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. J. Luck and S. A. Hillyard, “Electrophysiological correlates of feature analysis during visual search,” Psychophysiology, 31, No. 1, 291-308 (1994).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. K. Vogel and S. J. Luck, “The visual N1 component as an index of a discrimination process,” Psychophysiology, 37, No. 2, 190-203 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. Lavie, “Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention,” J. Exp. Psychol. Human Percept. Perform., 21, No. 3, 451-468 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. J. Heinze, S. J. Luck, G. R. Mangun, and S. A. Hillyard, “Visual event-related potentials index focused attention within bilateral stimulus arrays. I. Evidence for early selection,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., 75, 511-527 (1990).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. J. Luck, An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique, MIT Press, Cambridge (2005).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. B. Israel, G. L. Chesney, C. D. Wickens, and E. Donchin, “P300 and tracking difficulty: evidence for multiple resources in dual-task performance,” Psychophysiology, 17, No. 3, 259-273 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Dushanova and D. Mitov, “Visual event-related potentials and orientation identification,” C. R. Acad. Bulg. Sci., 65, No. 7, 969-976 (2012).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Urbach and H. Spitzer, “Attentional effort modulated by task difficulty,” Vis. Res. 35, No. 15, 2169-2177 (1995).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Urbach, The Correlation between Task Difficulty, Attentional Effort and Subject’s Performance in Human Subjects, PhD Thesis, Tel-Aviv (2001).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Chen, S. Martinez-Conde, S. L. Macknik, et al., “Task difficulty modulates the activity of specific neuronal populations in primary visual cortex,” Nat. Neurosci., 11, No. 8, 974-982 (2008).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. J. Luck, G. F. Woodman, and E. K. Vogel, “Event-related potential studies of attention,” Trends Cogn. Sci., 4, No. 11, 432-440 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. A. S. Boksem, T. F. Meijman, and M. M. Lorist, “Effects of mental fatigue on attention: An ERP study,” Cogn. Brain Res., 25, 107-116 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. R. Folstein and C. Van Petten, “Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: a review,” Psychophysiology, 45, No. 1, 152-170 (2008).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. D. Wilder, E. Kowler, B. S. Schnitzer, et al., “Attention during active visual tasks: counting, pointing, or simply looking,” Vis. Res., 49, No. 9, 1017-1031 (2009).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Donchin and M. G. H. Coles, “Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating?” Behav. Brain Sci., 11, 357-374 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. Donchin, W. Ritter, and W. C. McCallum, “Brain eventrelated potentials in man,” in: Cognitive Psychophysiology: The Endogenous Components of the ERP, E. Callway, P. Tueting, and S. Koslow (eds.), Acad. Press, New York (1978), pp. 349-441.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. A. Hillyard and M. Kutas, “Electrophysiology of cognitive processing,” Annu. Rev. Psychol., 34, 33-61 (1983).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    V. D. Glezer and A. A. Nevskaya, “Simultaneous and consecutive processing of information in the visual system,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 155, 711-714 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    V. D. Glezer, Vision and Mind, Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1995).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A.Vassilev, B. Simeonova, and M. Zlatkova, Information Processing in Visual System [in Russian], V. D. Glezer (ed.), Nauka, Leningrad (1982), pp. 35-40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Neurobiology, Bulgarian Academy of SciencesSofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations