Abstract

Detecting changes in the environment is fundamental for our survival. According to predictive coding theory, detecting these irregularities relies both on incoming sensory information and our top–down prior expectations (or internal generative models) about the world. Prediction errors (PEs), detectable in event-related potentials (ERPs), occur when there is a mismatch between the sensory input and our internal model (i.e., a surprise event). Many changes occurring in our environment are irrelevant for survival and may remain unseen. Such changes, even if subtle, can nevertheless be detected by the brain without emerging into consciousness. What remains unclear is how these changes are processed in the brain at the network level. Here, we used a visual oddball paradigm in which participants engaged in a central letter task during electroencephalographic (EEG) recordings while presented with task-irrelevant high- or low-coherence background, random-dot motion. Critically, once in a while, the direction of the dots changed. After the EEG session, we confirmed that changes in motion direction at high- and low-coherence were visible and invisible, respectively, using psychophysical measurements. ERP analyses revealed that changes in motion direction elicited PE regardless of the visibility, but with distinct spatiotemporal patterns. To understand these responses, we applied dynamic causal modeling (DCM) to the EEG data. Bayesian Model Averaging showed visible PE relied on a release from adaptation (repetition suppression) within bilateral MT+, whereas invisible PE relied on adaptation at bilateral V1 (and left MT+). Furthermore, while feedforward upregulation was present for invisible PE, the visible change PE also included downregulation of feedback between right MT+ to V1. Our findings reveal a complex interplay of modulation in the generative network models underlying visible and invisible motion changes.

Highlights

  • Detecting changes in the environment is fundamental for our survival because these may indicate potential rewards or threats (LeDoux, 1996; Panksepp, 1998; Rensink, 2002)

  • For the low (5%) coherence condition, if the bottom end of the confidence interval was above chance (25% correct), we assumed that the participant may have been aware of the direction of motion during the EEG experiment (Figure 2B)

  • After exclusion based on the follow-up psychophysics task, we analyzed the performance of the remaining N = 19 participants in the 1-back task to check if they appropriately focused on the central letter task and ignored the background motion during the EEG session of the main task

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Detecting changes in the environment is fundamental for our survival because these may indicate potential rewards or threats (LeDoux, 1996; Panksepp, 1998; Rensink, 2002). Mismatch between the sensory input and our internal model results in a surprise event, signaled by a prediction error (PE) response in event-related potentials (ERPs). These PE responses represent the difference in the neural activation between expected (frequent or ‘standard’) and unexpected (rare/surprising or ‘deviant’) events and have been used extensively in the auditory modality to yield the mismatch negativity (MMN; Näätänen et al, 1978; Näätänen, 1992; Garrido et al, 2007). Many changes in the sensory environment that evoke PEs may go unnoticed (Czigler, 2014; Stefanics et al, 2014). What remains unclear is how such sensory changes are processed by the brain at the network level

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call