Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Slagter, H.

Publications and source records attributed to Slagter, H..

4 recordsLinked to original sources

The perceptual nature of illusory object recognition

We occasionally misinterpret ambiguous sensory input or report a stimulus when none is presented. It is unknown whether such errors have a sensory origin and reflect true perceptual illusions, or whether they have a more cognitive origin (e.g., are due to guessing), or both. When participants performed an error-prone and challenging face/house discrimination task, multivariate EEG analyses revealed that during decision errors (mistaking a face for a house), sensory stages of visual information processing initially represent the presented stimulus category. Crucially however, when participants were confident in their erroneous decision, so when the illusion was strongest, this neural representation flipped later in time and reflected the incorrectly reported percept. This flip in neural pattern was absent for decisions that were made with low confidence. This work demonstrates that decision confidence arbitrates between perceptual decision errors, which reflect true illusions of perception, and cognitive decision errors, which do not.

neuroscience↗

Neural mechanisms underlying distractor inhibition on the basis of feature and/or spatial expectations.

A rapidly growing body of research indicates that inhibition of distracting information may not be under flexible, top-down control, but instead heavily relies on expectations derived from past experience about the likelihood of events. Yet, how expectations about distracting information influence distractor inhibition at the neural level remains unclear. To determine how expectations induced by distractor features and/or location regularities modulate distractor processing, we measured EEG while participants performed two variants of the additional singleton paradigm. Critically, in these different variants, target and distractor features either randomly swapped across trials, or were fixed, allowing for the development of distractor feature-based expectations. Moreover, the task was initially performed without any spatial regularities, after which a high probability distractor location was introduced. Our results show that both distractor feature- and location regularities contributed to distractor inhibition, as indicated by corresponding reductions in distractor costs during visual search and an earlier distractor-evoked Pd component. Yet, control analyses showed that while observers were sensitive to regularities across longer time scales, the observed effects to a large extent reflected intertrial repetition. Large individual differences further suggest a functional dissociation between early and late Pd components, with the former reflecting early sensory suppression related to intertrial priming and the latter reflecting suppression sensitive to expectations derived over a longer time scale. Also, counter to some previous findings, no increase in anticipatory alpha-band activity was observed over visual regions representing the expected distractor location, although this effect should be interpreted with caution as the effect of spatial statistical learning was also less pronounced than in other studies. Together, these findings suggest that intertrial priming and statistical learning may both contribute to distractor suppression and reveal the underlying neural mechanisms.

neuroscience↗

Learning what is irrelevant or relevant: Expectations facilitate distractor inhibition and target facilitation through distinct neural mechanisms

It is well known that attention can facilitate performance by top-down biasing processing of task-relevant information in advance. Recent findings from behavioral studies suggest that distractor inhibition is not under similar direct control, but strongly dependent on expectations derived from previous experience. Yet, how expectations about distracting information influence distractor inhibition at the neural level remains unclear. The current study addressed this outstanding question in three experiments in which search displays with repeating distractor or target locations across trials allowed observers to learn which location to selectively suppress or boost. Behavioral findings demonstrated that both distractor and target location learning resulted in more efficient search, as indexed by faster response times. Crucially, benefits of distractor learning were observed without target location foreknowledge, unaffected by the number of possible target locations, and could not be explained by priming alone. To determine how distractor location expectations facilitated performance, we applied a spatial encoding model to EEG data to reconstruct activity in neural populations tuned to the distractor or target location. Target location learning increased neural tuning to the target location in advance, indicative of preparatory biasing. This sensitivity increased after target presentation. By contrast, distractor expectations did not change preparatory spatial tuning. Instead, distractor expectations reduced distractor-specific processing, as reflected in the disappearance of the Pd ERP component, a neural marker of distractor inhibition, and decreased decoding accuracy. These findings suggest that the brain may no longer process expected distractors as distractors, once it has learned they can safely be ignored.\n\nSignificance statementWe constantly try hard to ignore conspicuous events that distract us from our current goals. Surprisingly, and in contrast to dominant attention theories, ignoring distracting, but irrelevant events does not seem to be as flexible as is focusing our attention on those same aspects. Instead, distractor suppression appears to strongly rely on learned, context-dependent expectations. Here, we investigated how learning about upcoming distractors changes distractor processing and directly contrasted the underlying neural dynamics to target learning. We show that while target learning enhanced anticipatory sensory tuning, distractor learning only modulated reactive suppressive processing. These results suggest that expected distractors may no longer be considered distractors by the brain once it has learned that they can safely be ignored.

neuroscience↗

Tracking Real Time Changes in Working Memory Updating and Gating with Event-Based Eye-Blink Rate

Effective working memory (WM) functioning depends on the gating process that regulates the balance between maintenance and updating of WM. The present study used the event-based eye-blink rate (ebEBR), which presumably reflects phasic striatal dopamine activity, to examine how the cognitive processes of gating and updating separately facilitate flexible updating of WM contents and the potential involvement of dopamine in these processes. Realtime changes in eye blinks were tracked during performance on the reference-back task, in which demands on these two processes were independently manipulated. In all three experiments, trials that required WM updating and trials that required gate switching were both associated with increased ebEBR. These results may support the prefrontal cortex basal ganglia WM model (PBWM) by linking updating and gating to striatal dopaminergic activity. In Experiment 3, the ebEBR was used to determine what triggers gate switching. We found that switching to an updating mode (gate opening) was more stimulus driven and retroactive than switching to a maintenance mode, which was more context driven. Together, these findings show that the ebEBR - an inexpensive, non-invasive, easy-to-use measure - can be used to track changes in WM demands during task performance and, hence, possibly striatal dopamine activity.

neuroscience↗