Feature binding in auditory modality requires attention as indexed by mismatch negativity and N2b in an active discrimination task.

Currently, there are two opposing views on feature binding in the auditory modality: according to behavioral studies, this process requires focused attention, whereas electrophysiological studies suggest that feature binding may be fully automatic and independent of attention. Here, we examined whether feature binding depends on higher-level attentional processes by manipulating the attentional focus. We used four auditory stimuli that differed in two features: pitch and location. Two rare deviants could be detected within a sequence of two frequent standards exclusively by feature conjunctions rather than by any single feature alone. Event-related potentials to auditory stimuli were analyzed for four conditions: selective attention to target auditory deviants, selective ignoring of nontarget auditory deviants, nonselective distributed attention to all stimuli within auditory modality, and selective attention diverted from auditory to visual modality. The negative difference (Nd) between event-related potentials to deviants and standards was measured within two time intervals, corresponding to mismatch negativity (100-200 ms) and N2b (200-300 ms). Only under the condition of selective attention to specific feature conjunctions, prominent Nd was observed in mismatch negativity as well in N2b time ranges, whereas no significant Nd was observed in other conditions. As Nd is considered a marker of deviance processing, our results support the view that deviance was not detected unless attention was focused on the stimuli, thus supporting the view that feature binding requires attention.

Distributed feature binding in the auditory modality: experimental evidence toward reconciliation of opposing views on the basis of mismatch negativity and behavioral measures.

Current understanding of feature binding remains controversial. Studies involving mismatch negativity (MMN) measurement show a low level of binding, whereas behavioral experiments suggest a higher level. We examined the possibility that the two levels of feature binding coexist and may be shown within one experiment. The electroencephalogram was recorded while participants were engaged in an auditory two-alternative choice task, which was a combination of the oddball and the condensation tasks. Two types of deviant target stimuli were used - complex stimuli, which required feature conjunction to be identified, and simple stimuli, which differed from standard stimuli in a single feature. Two behavioral outcomes - correct responses and errors - were analyzed separately. Responses to complex stimuli were slower and less accurate than responses to simple stimuli. MMN was prominent and its amplitude was similar for both simple and complex stimuli, whereas the respective stimuli differed from standards in a single feature or two features respectively. Errors in response only to complex stimuli were associated with decreased MMN amplitude. P300 amplitude was greater for complex stimuli than for simple stimuli. Our data are compatible with the explanation that feature binding in auditory modality depends on two concurrent levels of processing. We speculate that the earlier level related to MMN generation is an essential and critical stage. Yet, a later analysis is also carried out, affecting P300 amplitude and response time. The current findings provide resolution to conflicting views on the nature of feature binding and show that feature binding is a distributed multilevel process.

Theta and Alpha Band Modulations Reflect Error-Related Adjustments in the Auditory Condensation Task.

Error commission leads to adaptive adjustments in a number of brain networks that subserve goal-directed behavior, resulting in either enhanced stimulus processing or increased motor threshold depending on the nature of errors committed. Here, we studied these adjustments by analyzing post-error modulations of alpha and theta band activity in the auditory version of the two-choice condensation task, which is highly demanding for sustained attention while involves no inhibition of prepotent responses. Errors were followed by increased frontal midline theta (FMT) activity, as well as by enhanced alpha band suppression in the parietal and the left central regions; parietal alpha suppression correlated with the task performance, left central alpha suppression correlated with the post-error slowing, and FMT increase correlated with both behavioral measures. On post-error correct trials, left-central alpha band suppression started earlier before the response, and the response was followed by weaker FMT activity, as well as by enhanced alpha band suppression distributed over the entire scalp. These findings indicate that several separate neuronal networks are involved in post-error adjustments, including the midfrontal performance monitoring network, the parietal attentional network, and the sensorimotor network. Supposedly, activity within these networks is rapidly modulated after errors, resulting in optimization of their functional state on the subsequent trials, with corresponding changes in behavioral measures.