Abstract
Huber and O'Reilly (Cognitive Science, 27(3), 403–430, 2003) proposed that neural habituation aids perceptual processing, separating neural responses to currently viewed objects from recently viewed objects. However, synaptic depression has costs, producing repetition deficits. Prior work confirmed the transition from repetition benefits to deficits with increasing duration of a prime object, but the prediction of enhanced novelty detection was not tested. The current study examined this prediction with a same/different word priming task, using support vector machine (SVM) classification of EEG data, event-related potential (ERP) analyses focused on the N400, and dynamic neural network simulations fit to behavioral data to provide a priori predictions of the ERP effects. Subjects made same/different judgements to a response word in relation to an immediately preceding brief target word; prime durations were short (50 ms) or long (400 ms), and long durations decreased P100/N170 potentials to the response word, suggesting that this manipulation increased habituation. Following long duration primes, correct “different” judgments of primed response words increased, evidencing enhanced novelty detection. An SVM classifier predicted trial-by-trial behavior with 66.34% accuracy on held-out data, with greatest predictive power at a time pattern consistent with the N400. The habituation model was augmented with a maintained semantics layer (i.e., working memory) to generate behavior and N400 predictions. A second experiment used response-locked ERPs, confirming the model’s assumption that residual activation in working memory is the basis of novelty decisions. These results support the theory that neural habituation enhances novelty detection, and the model assumption that the N400 reflects updating of semantic information in working memory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability Statement
The computational model code used for generating model predictions and the EEG datasets analyzed during the current study are available in the following OSF repository: https://osf.io/vhwp5/?view_only=baa47f06b9c64ad7a9710530387c72ac
References
Abbott, L. F., Varela, J. A., Sen, K., & Nelson, S. B. (1997). Synaptic depression and cortical gain control. Science, 275(5297), 220–224.
Anderson, J. R., Zhang, Q., Borst, J. P., & Walsh, M. M. (2016). The discovery of processing stages: Extension of Sternberg’s method. Psychological Review, 123(5), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000030.
Baillet, S., Mosher, J. C., & Leahy, R. M. (2001). Electromagnetic brain mapping. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 18(6), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1109/79.962275.
Berg, P., & Scherg, M. (1994). A fast method for forward computation of multiple-shell spherical head models. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 90(1), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(94)90113-9.
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 433–436.
Brouwer, H., Crocker, M. W., Venhuizen, N. J., & Hoeks, J. C. J. (2017). A neurocomputational model of the N400 and the P600 in language processing. Cognitive Science, 41(Suppl 6), 1318–1352. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12461.
Burt, J. S., Kipps, T. J., & Matthews, J. R. (2014). Repetition in visual word identification: Benefits and costs. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (Hove), 67(10), 1986–2009. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.896386.
Chang, C. C., & Lin, C. J. (2011). LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 2(3), 27. https://doi.org/10.1145/1961189.1961199.
Cheyette, S. J., & Plaut, D. C. (2017). Modeling the N400 ERP component as transient semantic over-activation within a neural network model of word comprehension. Cognition, 162, 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.016.
Chun, M. M., & Potter, M. C. (1995). A 2-stage model for multiple-target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 21(1), 109–127.
Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.
Davelaar, E. J., Tian, X., Weidemann, C. T., & Huber, D. E. (2011). A habituation account of change detection in same/different judgments. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 11(4), 608–626. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-011-0056-8.
Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009.
Di Lollo, V. (1980). Temporal integration in visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 109(1), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.109.1.75.
Di Lollo, V., & Bischof, W. F. (1995). The inverse-intensity effect in duration of visible persistence. Perception, 24, 25–25.
Di Lollo, V., & Dixon, P. (1992). Inverse duration effects in partial report. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 1089–1100. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.18.4.1089.
Di Russo, F., Martinez, A., Sereno, M. I., Pitzalis, S., & Hillyard, S. A. (2002). Cortical sources of the early components of the visual evoked potential. Human Brain Mapping, 15(2), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/Hbm.10010.
Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, F. (2003). Response facilitation and inhibition in subliminal priming. Biological Psychology, 64(1–2), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(03)00100-5.
Foxe, J. J., & Simpson, G. V. (2002). Flow of activation from V1 to frontal cortex in humans-A framework for defining “early” visual processing. Experimental Brain Research, 142(1), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-001-0906-7.
Frank, S. L., Otten, L. J., Galli, G., & Vigliocco, G. (2015). The ERP response to the amount of information conveyed by words in sentences. Brain and Language, 140, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.10.006.
Gomez Gonzalez, C. M., Clark, V. P., Fan, S., Luck, S. J., & Hillyard, S. A. (1994). Sources of attention-sensitive visual event-related potentials. Brain Topography, 7(1), 41–51.
Grill-Spector, K., Henson, R., & Martin, A. (2006). Repetition and the brain: Neural models of stimulus-specific effects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.11.006.
Haufe, S., Meinecke, F., Gorgen, K., Dahne, S., Haynes, J. D., Blankertz, B., et al. (2014). On the interpretation of weight vectors of linear models in multivariate neuroimaging. Neuroimage, 87, 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.10.067.
Huber, D. E. (2008). Immediate priming and cognitive aftereffects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 137(2), 324–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.324.
Huber, D. E., & O'Reilly, R. C. (2003). Persistence and accommodation in short-term priming and other perceptual paradigms: Temporal segregation through synaptic depression. Cognitive Science, 27(3), 403–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(03)00012-0.
Huber, D. E., Shiffrin, R. M., Quach, R., & Lyle, K. B. (2002). Mechanisms of source confusion and discounting in short-term priming: 1. Effects of prime duration and prime recognition. Memory & Cognition, 30(5), 745–757. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196430.
Huber, D. E., Clark, T. F., Curran, T., & Winkielman, P. (2008a). Effects of repetition priming on recognition memory: Testing a perceptual fluency-disfluency model. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(6), 1305–1324. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013370.
Huber, D. E., Tian, X., Curran, T., O'Reilly, R. C., & Woroch, B. (2008b). The dynamics of integration and separation: ERP, MEG, and neural network studies of immediate repetition effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 34(6), 1389–1416. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013625.
Irwin, K. R., Huber, D. E., & Winkielman, P. (2010). Automatic affective dynamics: An activation-habituation model of affective assimilation and contrast. Modeling Machine Emotions for Realizing Intelligence, 1, 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12604-8.
Kappenman, E. S., Luck, S. J., Rossion, B., & Jacques, C. (2012). The N170: Understanding the time course of face perception in the human brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36, 14–14.
Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence: Brown University Press.
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123.
Laszlo, S., & Armstrong, B. C. (2014). PSPs and ERPs: Applying the dynamics of post-synaptic potentials to individual units in simulation of temporally extended event-related potential reading data. Brain and Language, 132, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.03.002.
Laszlo, S., & Plaut, D. C. (2012). A neurally plausible parallel distributed processing model of event-related potential word reading data. Brain and Language, 120(3), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.09.001.
Lau, E. F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(12), 920–933. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2532.
Lleras, A., & Enns, J. T. (2004). Negative compatibility or object updating? A cautionary tale of mask-dependent priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 133(4), 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.4.475.
Long, G. M., Toppino, T. C., & Mondin, G. W. (1992). Prime-time: Fatigue and set effects in the perception of reversible figures. Perception & Psychophysics, 52(6), 609–616. https://doi.org/10.3758/Bf03211697.
Lopez-Calderon, J., & Luck, S. J. (2014). ERPLAB: An open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 213. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00213.
Luck, S. J. (2014). An introduction to the event-related potential technique (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Morey, R. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61–64.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks-data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.220.
Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. Attention and Performance, 10, 531–556.
Potter, K. W., Donkin, C., & Huber, D. E. (2018). The elimination of positive priming with increasing prime duration reflects a transition from perceptual fluency to disfluency rather than bias against primed words. Cognitive Psychology, 101, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.11.004.
Rabovsky, M., & McRae, K. (2014). Simulating the N400 ERP component as semantic network error: Insights from a feature-based connectionist attractor model of word meaning. Cognition, 132(1), 68–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.010.
Rabovsky, M., Hansen, S. S., & McClelland, J. L. (2018). Modelling the N400 brain potential as change in a probabilistic representation of meaning. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 693–705. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0406-4.
Riefer, D. M., & Batchelder, W. H. (1988). Multinomial modeling and the measurement of cognitive-processes. Psychological Review, 95(3), 318–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.95.3.318.
Riesenhuber, M., & Poggio, T. (1999). Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2(11), 1019–1025.
Rieth, C. A., & Huber, D. E. (2010). Priming and habituation for faces: Individual differences and inversion effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 36(3), 596–618. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018737.
Rieth, C. A., & Huber, D. E. (2013). Implicit learning of spatiotemporal contingencies in spatial cueing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 39(4), 1165–1180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030870.
Rieth, C. A., & Huber, D. E. (2017). Comparing different kinds of words and word-word relations to test an habituation model of priming. Cognitive Psychology, 95, 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.04.002.
Rugg, M. D. (1985). The effects of semantic priming and work repetition on event-related potentials. Psychophysiology, 22(6), 642–647.
Rusconi, P., & Huber, D. E. (2018). The perceptual wink model of non-switching attentional blink tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(5), 1717–1739. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1385-6.
Tian, X., & Huber, D. E. (2010). Testing an associative account of semantic satiation. Cognitive Psychology, 60(4), 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.01.003.
Tian, X., & Huber, D. E. (2013). Playing “duck duck goose” with neurons: Change detection through connectivity reduction. Psychological Science, 24(6), 819–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612459765.
Webster, M. A., & MacLin, O. H. (1999). Figural aftereffects in the perception of faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 647–653. https://doi.org/10.3758/Bf03212974.
Weidemann, C. T., Huber, D. E., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2008). Prime diagnosticity in short-term repetition priming: Is primed evidence discounted, even when it reliably indicates the correct answer? Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 34(2), 257–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.257.
Acknowledgments
We thank Anushree Mehta for her work on an earlier version of the SVM classifier, and Christoph Weidemann for his suggestions towards improving our classifier analyses.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Supplementary Fig. 1
Output and resources for the response word node within the maintained semantic layer of the model. In the model, higher output will consume resources, and decreased resources will reduce output (see “Habituation model” subsection within methods section for details and equations). In this figure, output and resources of the node corresponding to the response word (bolded in each subplot) is shown across a full trial. Residual activations, the lowest output value following response word presentation, are also marked. Lower residual activations cause the model to predict a “different” response, while higher residual activations cause it to predict a “same” response. Accuracy for each of the 8 conditions is determined from the value indicated by the arrow, as compared to a criterion. We consider each condition in turn, working up from the bottom. In the case of the A-A-B conditions, there is no residual activation for B, and so accuracy is good and unchanged by prime duration. In the case of the A-B-B condition, residual activation for B indicates a correct answer of “same”. Residual activate for B increases with increasing prime duration because as habituation for A increases, it does not compete as much with B in the perceptual layers of the model (i.e., a better response to the briefly flashed target word B). In the case of the A-B-A conditions, residual activation from the prime (word A) incorrectly indicates a “same” response. However, for a longer duration prime, word A is habituated, and so there is less residual activation for A, which improves accuracy (enhanced novelty detection). Finally, in the case of A-A-A, residual activation for A correctly indicates a “same” response. However, habituation for word A weakens this residual activation, and reduces accuracy with increasing prime duration (i.e., repetition blindness leads to worse performance). (PNG 92 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 2
Layer specific activation profiles. The activation profiles of multiple layers were combined to generate N400 and P100/N170 ERP predictions; the above shows the activation of the individual layers. These waveforms were obtained by summing the output of all nodes within a layer at each unit of simulated time. See “Habituation model” subsection within methods section for information on how parameters were obtained. (PNG 102 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 3
Equivalent model fitting results as compared to the model fits shown in Fig. 4, except that observed data have been time-reversed by labeling the actual 400 ms prime duration conditions as being the 50 ms prime duration conditions and the actual 50 ms prime duration conditions as being the 400 ms prime duration conditions. As in Figs. 4, 5 parameters were optimized in attempt to explain the 8 conditions. Despite having the same 5 free parameters to capture these time-reversed data, the model completely failed to account for the results. The best-fitting χ2 for these time-reversed data was 548.4, which can be contrasted with a χ2 of 40.4 for the results show in Fig. 4. In this case, the best that the model could do was to minimize the role of prime duration to capture the overall average accuracy collapsed across the conditions. This highlights that this is a dynamic systems model, rather than a measurement model. The model is greatly constrained in its predictions for changes across manipulations of duration. More specifically, as prime duration increases, the model necessarily predicts that habituation will increase. (PNG 58 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jacob, L.P.L., Huber, D.E. Neural Habituation Enhances Novelty Detection: an EEG Study of Rapidly Presented Words. Comput Brain Behav 3, 208–227 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-019-00071-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-019-00071-w