Different ERP effects related to visual and semantical incongruition during face processing

Abstract

Two consecutive events transforming the same illusory surface in transparent motion (brief changes in direction) can be discriminated with ease, but a prolonged interference (∼500 ms) on the discrimination of the second event arises when different surfaces are concerned [Valdes-Sosa, M., Cobo, A., & Pinilla, T. (2000). Attention to object files defined by transparent motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(2), 488–505]. Here we further characterise this phenomenon and compare it to the attentional blink AB [Shapiro, K.L., Raymond, J.E., & Arnell, K.M. (1994). Attention to visual pattern information produces the attentional blink in RSVP. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 357–371]. Similar to the AB, reduced sensitivity (d′) was found in the two-surface condition. However, the two-surface cost was associated with a reduced N1 brain response in contrast to reports for AB [Vogel, E.K., Luck, S.J., & Shapiro, K. (1998). Electrophysiological evidence for a postperceptual locus of suppression during the attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(6), 1656–1674]. The results from this study indicate that the two-surface cost corresponds to competitive effects in early vision. Reasons for the discrepancy with the AB study are considered.