Abstract
To investigate the basis of crossmodal visual distractor congruency effects, we recorded event-related brain potentials (ERP) while participants performed a tactile location-discrimination task. Participants made speeded tactile location-discrimination responses to tactile targets presented to the index fingers or thumbs while ignoring simultaneously presented task-irrelevant visual distractor stimuli at either the same (congruent) or a different (incongruent) location. Behavioural results were in line with previous studies, showing slowed response times and increased error rates on incongruent compared with congruent visual distractor trials. To clarify the effect of visual distractors on tactile processing, concurrently recorded ERPs were analyzed for poststimulus, preresponse, and postresponse modulations. An enhanced negativity was found in the time range of the N2 component on incongruent compared with congruent visual distractor trials prior to correct responses. In addition, postresponse ERPs showed the presence of error-related negativity components on incorrect-response trials and enhanced negativity for congruent-incorrect compared with incongruent-incorrect trials. This pattern of ERP results has previously been related to response conflict (Yeung, Botvinick, & Cohen, 2004). Importantly, no modulation of early somatosensory ERPs was present prior to the N2 time range, which may have suggested the contribution of other perceptual or postperceptual processes to crossmodal congruency effects. Taken together, our results suggest that crossmodal visual distractor effects are largely due to response conflict.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652.
Calvert, G., Spence, C., & Stein, B. E. (EDS.) (2004). The handbook of multisensory processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Davies, P. L., Segalowitz, S. J., Dywan, J., & Pailing, P. E. (2001). Error-negativity and positivity as they relate to other ERP indices of attentional control and stimulus processing. Biological Psychology, 56, 191–206.
Dehaene, S., Posner, M. I., & Tucker, D. M. (1994). Localization of a neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychological Science, 5, 303–305.
Desmedt, J. E., & Robertson, D. (1977). Differential enhancements of early and late components of the cerebral somatosensory evoked potentials during forced-pace cognitive tasks in man. Journal of Physiology, 271, 761–782.
Eimer, M., & Forster, B. (2003). Modulations of early somatosensory ERP components by transient and sustained spatial attention. Experimental Brain Research, 151, 24–31.
Eimer, M., Forster, B., Fieger, A., & Harbich, S. (2004). Effects of hand posture on preparatory control processes and sensory modulations in tactile-spatial attention. Clinical Neurophysiology, 115, 596–608.
Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J., Hoormann, J., & Blanke, L. (1991). Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components: II. Error processing in choice reaction tasks. Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology, 78, 447–455.
Forster, B., Eardley, A. F., & Eimer, M. (2007). Altered tactile spatial attention in the early blind. Brain Research, 1131, 149–154.
Forster, B., & Eimer, M. (2004). The attentional selection of spatial and non-spatial attributes in touch: ERP evidence for parallel and independent processes. Biological Psychology, 66, 1–20.
Forster, B., & Eimer, M. (2005a). Covert attention in touch: Behavioral and ERP evidence for costs and benefits. Psychophysiology, 42, 171–179.
Forster, B., & Eimer, M. (2005b). Vision and gaze direction modulate tactile processing in somatosensory cortex: Evidence from eventrelated brain potentials. Experimental Brain Research, 165, 8–18.
García-Larrea, L., Lukaszewicz, A.-C., & Mauguière, F. (1995). Somatosensory responses during selective spatial attention: The N120-to-N140 transition. Psychophysiology, 32, 526–537.
Gehring, W. J., Goss, B., Coles, M. G., Meyer, D. E., & Donchin, E. (1993). A neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychological Science, 4, 385–390.
Holroyd, C. B., Dien, J., & Coles, M. G. (1998). Error-related scalp potentials elicited by hand and foot movements: Evidence for an output- independent error-processing system in humans. Neuroscience Letters, 242, 65–68.
Kennett, S., Spence, C., & Driver, J. (2002). Visuo-tactile links in covert exogenous spatial attention remap across changes in unseen hand posture. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1083–1094.
Kopp, B., Rist, F., & Mattler, U. (1996). N200 in the flanker task as a neurobehavioral tool for investigating executive control. Psychophysiology, 33, 282–294.
Liotti, M., Woldorff, M. G., Perez, R., III, & Mayberg, H. S. (2000). An ERP study of the temporal course of the Stroop color-word interference effect. Neuropsychologia, 38, 701–711.
Maravita, A., Spence, C., & Driver, J. (2003). Multisensory integration and the body schema: Close to hand and within reach. Current Biology, 13, R531-R539.
Michie, P. T. (1984). Selective attention effects on somatosensory eventrelated potentials. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 425, 250–255.
Michie, P. T., Bearpark, H. M., Crawford, J. M., & Glue, L. C. T. (1987). The effects of spatial selective attention on the somatosensory event-related potential. Psychophysiology, 24, 449–463.
Nieuwenhuis, S., Yeung, N., van den Wildenberg, W., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2003). Electrophysiological correlates of anterior cingulate function in a go/no-go task: Effects of response conflict and trial type frequency. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 17–26.
Schürmann, M., Kolev, V., Menzel, K., & Yordanova, J. (2002). Spatial coincidence modulates interaction between visual and somatosensory evoked potentials. NeuroReport, 13, 779–783.
Shore, D. I., Barnes, M. E., & Spence, C. (2006). Temporal aspects of the visuotactile congruency effect. Neuroscience Letters, 392, 96–100.
Shore, D. I., & Simic, N. (2005). Integration of visual and tactile stimuli: Top-down influences require time. Experimental Brain Research, 166, 509–517.
Spence, C., & Driver, J. (EDS.) (2004). Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spence, C., Pavani, F., & Driver, J. (2004). Spatial constraints on visual-tactile crossmodal distractor congruency effects. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 4, 148–169.
Spence, C., Pavani, F., Maravita, A., & Holmes, N. (2004). Multisensory contributions to the 3-D representation of visuotactile peripersonal space in humans: Evidence from the crossmodal congruency task. Journal of Physiology, 89, 171–189.
van Veen, V., & Carter, C. S. (2002). The anterior cingulate as a conflict monitor: fMRI and ERP studies. Physiology & Behavior, 77, 477–482.
Van Velzen, J., Forster, B., & Eimer, M. (2002). Temporal dynamics of liberalized ERP components elicited during endogenous attentional shifts to relevant tactile events. Psychophysiology, 39, 874–878.
Yeung, N., Botvinick, M.M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural basis of error detection: Conflict monitoring and the error-related negativity. Psychological Review, 111, 931–959.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by a grant from the Biotechnology and Biological Research Council (BBSRC).
Note—This article was accepted by the previous editorial team, when John Jonides was Editor
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Forster, B., Forster, B. & Pavone, E.F. Electrophysiological correlates of crossmodal visual distractor congruency effects: Evidence for response conflict. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 8, 65–73 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.8.1.65
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.8.1.65