Biology subjects

Kenemans, J. L.

Publications and source records attributed to Kenemans, J. L..

4 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2024

Dissociating External and Internal Attentional Selection

Visual Working Memory (VWM) stores visual information for upcoming actions. Just as attention can shift externally towards relevant objects in the visual environment, attention can shift internally towards (i.e., prioritize) VWM content that is relevant for upcoming tasks. Internal and external attentional selection share a number of key neural and functional characteristics, which include their spatial organization: recent work has shown that spatial attention is directed towards the previous location of a prioritized memory item, similar to how a perceived stimulus is prioritized. Attending stimuli that are physically present is useful, as it enhances processing of the relevant visual input. When prioritizing items in memory, however, attending the prior stimulus location cannot serve this purpose, as there is no visual input to enhance. Here, we address this apparent contradiction which highlights the gaps in our understanding of the mechanisms underlying external and internal visual attention. In two EEG experiments, we compare location-specific sensory enhancement during the attentional selection of external (perceived) as compared to internal (memorized) stimuli. During both internal and external selection we observed a lateralization of alpha oscillations and gaze position bias toward the previous locations of prioritized items, confirming earlier findings that suggested an inherent spatial organization within VWM. Critically, using Rapid Invisible Frequency Tagging (RIFT), we show that sensory enhancement at the attended location is only observed during external attentional selection of (perceived) stimuli. No such location-specific sensory enhancement was observed during attentional selection of items in VWM. Furthermore, we found no clear relationship across trials between alpha lateralization and sensory enhancement (measured through RIFT) during external attention, suggesting that these two metrics indeed reflect distinct cognitive mechanisms. In sum, using a novel combination of EEG and RIFT, we demonstrate a fundamental distinction between the neural mechanisms underlying the selection of perceived and memorized objects. Both types of selection operate within a spatial reference frame, but only external selection modulates early sensory processing. Our findings suggest that the visual system is not vestigially recruiting existing mechanisms of external attention for prioritization in VWM, but is instead using space as an organizational principle to store and select items in VWM.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2024

Rapid Invisible Frequency Tagging (RIFT) in a novel setup with EEG

Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials (SSVEPs) provide a report-free and continuous measure of neural processing. Recent progress in display technology has allowed for the tagging of multiple stimuli simultaneously at >60Hz frequencies - high enough to evade perceptibility, while still evoking an oscillatory neural response. Known as Rapid Invisible Frequency Tagging (RIFT), this technique has currently only been used in combination with Magnetoencephalography (MEG), which is less accessible compared to Electroencephalography (EEG). Although responses to LEDs flickering at similar frequencies have been shown in EEG, it is currently unclear whether RIFT, using a more conventional stimulus display, can sufficiently evoke a response in EEG, and therefore whether it is worth adding the RIFT-EEG pairing to the cognitive neuroscientists toolkit. Here, we successfully implement the first RIFT-EEG setup. We show that the oscillatory input is measurable in the EEG trace, what its topographical spread is, a rough range of applicable frequencies, and that this response is comparable to that evoked in MEG.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2022

A matter of availability: Neural representations of task-relevant stimulus features are sharper when stimuli are memorized rather than perceived.

Our visual environment is relatively stable over time and an optimized visual system ought to capitalize on this by not devoting any representational resources to objects that are still present. Subjective experience, however, suggests that externally available (i.e., perceived) information is more strongly represented in neural signals than memorized information. To distinguish between these possibilities, we use EEG multivariate pattern analysis to quantify the strength of representation of task-relevant features (color or spatial frequency) in anticipation of a change-detection task. Perceptual availability was manipulated between experimental blocks by either keeping the stimulus on the screen during a two second delay period (perception) or removing it shortly after its initial presentation for the same time period (memory). We find that task-relevant (i.e., attended) memorized features are more strongly represented than irrelevant features. More importantly, we find significantly weaker representations for available (perceived and attended) features than for unavailable (memorized and attended) features. Contrary to what subjective experience suggests, our findings demonstrate that vividly perceived and attended stimuli elicit weaker neural representations (in terms of detectable multivariate information) than stimuli maintained in visual working memory. We hypothesize that an efficient visual system spends little of its limited resources on the internal representation of information that is externally available anyway.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2022

How salience enhances inhibitory control: An analysis of electro-cortical mechanisms

Stop-signal tasks (SSTs) combined with human electro-cortical recordings (Event-Related Potentials, ERPs) have revealed mechanisms associated with successful stopping (relative to failed), presumably contributing to inhibitory control. The corresponding ERP signatures have been labeled stop N1 (+/- 100-ms latency), stop N2 (200 ms), and stop P3 (160-250 ms), and argued to reflect more proactive (N1) versus more reactive (N2, P3) mechanisms. However, stop N1 and stop N2, as well as latencies of stop-P3, appear to be quite inconsistent across studies. The present work addressed the possible influence of stop-signal salience, expecting high salience to induce clear stop N1s but reduced stop N2s, and short-latency stop P3s. Three SST varieties were combined with high-resolution EEG. An imperative visual (go) stimulus was occasionally followed by a subsequent (stop) stimulus that signalled to withhold the just initiated response. Stop-Signal Reaction Times (SSRTs) decreased linearly from visual-low to visual-high-salience to auditory. Auditory Stop N1 was replicated. A C1-like visual evoked potential (latency < 100 ms) was observed only with high salience, but not robustly associated with successful versus failed stops. Using the successful-failed contrast a visual stop-N1 analogue (112-156 ms post-stop-signal) was identified, as was right-frontal stop N2, but neither was sensitive to salience. Stop P3 had shorter latency for high than for low salience, and the extent of the early high-salience stop P3 correlated inversely with SSRT. These results suggest that salience-enhanced inhibitory control as manifest in SSRTs is associated with reactive rather than proactive electrocortical mechanisms.

neuroscience↗