The spatiotemporal characteristics of the C1 component and its modulation by attention

Endogenous Attention Affects Decision-related Neural Activity but Not Afferent Visual Responses

Endogenous shifts of spatial attention toward an upcoming stimulus are associated with improvements in behavioral responses to the stimulus, preparatory retinotopic shifts in alpha power, and changes in ERPs. Although attentional modulation of several early sensory ERPs is well established, there is still debate about under what circumstances attention affects the earliest cortical visual evoked response-the C1 ERP component-which is putatively generated from afferent input into primary visual cortex. Moreover, the effects of spatial attention on the recently discovered ERP signature of evidence accumulation-the central parietal positivity (CPP)-have not been fully characterized. The present study assessed the effect of spatial attention on the C1 and CPP components through a spatially cued contrast discrimination task using stimuli that were specifically designed to produce large-amplitude C1 responses and that varied in sensory evidence strength to characterize the CPP. Participants responded according to which of two checkerboard stimuli had greater contrast following an 80% valid cue toward the upper or lower visual field. Prestimulus alpha power changed topographically based on the cue, suggesting participants shifted attention to prepare for the upcoming stimuli. Despite these attentional shifts in alpha power and the fact that the stimuli reliably elicited C1 responses several times greater than many prior studies, there was no evidence of an attention effect on the C1. The CPP, however, showed a clear increase in build-up rate on valid trials. Our findings suggest that endogenous attention may not affect the early C1 ERP component but may improve behavior at a decision stage, as reflected in brain signals related to evidence accumulation (the CPP).

An extremely fast neural mechanism to detect emotional visual stimuli: A two-experiment study

Defining the brain mechanisms underlying initial emotional evaluation is a key but unexplored clue to understanding affective processing. Event-related potentials (ERPs), especially suited for investigating this issue, were recorded in two experiments (n = 36 and n = 35). We presented emotionally negative (spiders) and neutral (wheels) silhouettes homogenized regarding their visual parameters. In Experiment 1, stimuli appeared at fixation or in the periphery (200 trials per condition and location), the former eliciting a N40 (39 milliseconds) and a P80 (or C1: 80 milliseconds) component, and the latter only a P80. In Experiment 2, stimuli were presented only at fixation (500 trials per condition). Again, an N40 (45 milliseconds) was observed, followed by a P100 (or P1: 105 milliseconds). Analyses revealed significantly greater N40-C1P1 peak-to-peak amplitudes for spiders in both experiments, and ANCOVAs showed that these effects were not explained by C1P1 alone, but that processes underlying N40 significantly contributed. Source analyses pointed to V1 as an N40 focus (more clearly in Experiment 2). Sources for C1P1 included V1 (P80) and V2/LOC (P80 and P100). These results and their timing point to low-order structures (such as visual thalamic nuclei or superior colliculi) or the visual cortex itself, as candidates for initial evaluation structures.

Modulation of the Earliest Component of the Human VEP by Spatial Attention: An Investigation of Task Demands

Spatial attention modulations of initial afferent activity in area V1, indexed by the first component “C1” of the human visual evoked potential, are rarely found. It has thus been suggested that early modulation is induced only by special task conditions, but what these conditions are remains unknown. Recent failed replications—findings of no C1 modulation using a certain task that had previously produced robust modulations—present a strong basis for examining this question. We ran 3 experiments, the first to more exactly replicate the stimulus and behavioral conditions of the original task, and the second and third to manipulate 2 key factors that differed in the failed replication studies: the provision of informative performance feedback, and the degree to which the probed stimulus features matched those facilitating target perception. Although there was an overall significant C1 modulation of 11%, individually, only experiments 1 and 2 showed reliable effects, underlining that the modulations do occur but not consistently. Better feedback induced greater P1, but not C1, modulations. Target-probe feature matching had an inconsistent influence on modulation patterns, with behavioral performance differences and signal-overlap analyses suggesting interference from extrastriate modulations as a potential cause.