The C1 ERP component reflects the earliest visual processing in V1. However, it remains debated whether attentional load can influence it or not. We conducted two EEG experiments to investigate the effect of attentional load on the C1. Task difficulty was manipulated at fixation using an oddball detection task that was either easy (low load) or difficult (high load), while the distractor was presented in the upper visual field (UVF) to score the C1. In Experiment 1, we used a block design and the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between the central stimulus and the peripheral distractor was either short or long. In Experiment 2, task difficulty was manipulated on a trial-by-trial basis using a visual cue, and the peripheral distractor was presented either before or after the central stimulus. The results showed that the C1 was larger in the high compared to the low load condition irrespective of SOA in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, no significant load modulation of the C1 was observed. However, we found that the contingent negative variation (CNV) was larger in the low compared to the high load condition. Moreover, the C1 was larger when the peripheral distractor was presented after than before the central stimulus. Combined together, these results suggest that different top-down control processes can influence the initial feedforward stage of visual processing in V1 captured by the C1 ERP component.
Qin, N., Crespi, F., Proverbio, A., Pourtois, G. (2023). A systematic exploration of attentional load effects on the C1 ERP component. PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, 60(6 (June 2023)) [10.1111/psyp.14301].
A systematic exploration of attentional load effects on the C1 ERP component
Proverbio, Alice Mado;
2023
Abstract
The C1 ERP component reflects the earliest visual processing in V1. However, it remains debated whether attentional load can influence it or not. We conducted two EEG experiments to investigate the effect of attentional load on the C1. Task difficulty was manipulated at fixation using an oddball detection task that was either easy (low load) or difficult (high load), while the distractor was presented in the upper visual field (UVF) to score the C1. In Experiment 1, we used a block design and the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between the central stimulus and the peripheral distractor was either short or long. In Experiment 2, task difficulty was manipulated on a trial-by-trial basis using a visual cue, and the peripheral distractor was presented either before or after the central stimulus. The results showed that the C1 was larger in the high compared to the low load condition irrespective of SOA in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, no significant load modulation of the C1 was observed. However, we found that the contingent negative variation (CNV) was larger in the low compared to the high load condition. Moreover, the C1 was larger when the peripheral distractor was presented after than before the central stimulus. Combined together, these results suggest that different top-down control processes can influence the initial feedforward stage of visual processing in V1 captured by the C1 ERP component.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Qui-2023-Psychophysiol-VoR.pdf
Solo gestori archivio
Descrizione: Original Article
Tipologia di allegato:
Publisher’s Version (Version of Record, VoR)
Licenza:
Tutti i diritti riservati
Dimensione
6.68 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
6.68 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.