Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Vis ; 24(7): 8, 2024 Jul 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38990066

ABSTRACT

In the present study, we used Hierarchical Frequency Tagging (Gordon et al., 2017) to investigate in electroencephalography how different levels of the neural processing hierarchy interact with category-selective attention during visual object recognition. We constructed stimulus sequences of cyclic wavelet scrambled face and house stimuli at two different frequencies (f1 = 0.8 Hz and f2 = 1 Hz). For each trial, two stimulus sequences of different frequencies were superimposed and additionally augmented by a sinusoidal contrast modulation with f3 = 12.5 Hz. This allowed us to simultaneously assess higher level processing using semantic wavelet-induced frequency-tagging (SWIFT) and processing in earlier visual levels using steady-state visually evoked potentials (SSVEPs), along with their intermodulation (IM) components. To investigate the category specificity of the SWIFT signal, we manipulated the category congruence between target and distractor by superimposing two sequences containing stimuli from the same or different object categories. Participants attended to one stimulus (target) and ignored the other (distractor). Our results showed successful tagging of different levels of the cortical hierarchy. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, we detected different attentional modulation effects on lower versus higher processing levels. SWIFT and IM components were substantially increased for target versus distractor stimuli, reflecting attentional selection of the target stimuli. In addition, distractor stimuli from the same category as targets elicited stronger SWIFT signals than distractor stimuli from a different category indicating category-selective attention. In contrast, for IM components, this category-selective attention effect was largely absent, indicating that IM components probably reflect more stimulus-specific processing.


Subject(s)
Attention , Electroencephalography , Evoked Potentials, Visual , Pattern Recognition, Visual , Photic Stimulation , Humans , Attention/physiology , Male , Female , Electroencephalography/methods , Evoked Potentials, Visual/physiology , Young Adult , Adult , Photic Stimulation/methods , Pattern Recognition, Visual/physiology , Reaction Time/physiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...