» Articles » PMID: 38990066

Measuring Attentional Selection of Object Categories Using Hierarchical Frequency Tagging

Overview
Journal J Vis
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2024 Jul 11
PMID 38990066
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In the present study, we used Hierarchical Frequency Tagging (Gordon et al., 2017) to investigate in electroencephalography how different levels of the neural processing hierarchy interact with category-selective attention during visual object recognition. We constructed stimulus sequences of cyclic wavelet scrambled face and house stimuli at two different frequencies (f1 = 0.8 Hz and f2 = 1 Hz). For each trial, two stimulus sequences of different frequencies were superimposed and additionally augmented by a sinusoidal contrast modulation with f3 = 12.5 Hz. This allowed us to simultaneously assess higher level processing using semantic wavelet-induced frequency-tagging (SWIFT) and processing in earlier visual levels using steady-state visually evoked potentials (SSVEPs), along with their intermodulation (IM) components. To investigate the category specificity of the SWIFT signal, we manipulated the category congruence between target and distractor by superimposing two sequences containing stimuli from the same or different object categories. Participants attended to one stimulus (target) and ignored the other (distractor). Our results showed successful tagging of different levels of the cortical hierarchy. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, we detected different attentional modulation effects on lower versus higher processing levels. SWIFT and IM components were substantially increased for target versus distractor stimuli, reflecting attentional selection of the target stimuli. In addition, distractor stimuli from the same category as targets elicited stronger SWIFT signals than distractor stimuli from a different category indicating category-selective attention. In contrast, for IM components, this category-selective attention effect was largely absent, indicating that IM components probably reflect more stimulus-specific processing.

References
1.
Aissani C, Cottereau B, Dumas G, Paradis A, Lorenceau J . Magnetoencephalographic signatures of visual form and motion binding. Brain Res. 2011; 1408:27-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.05.051. View

2.
Palmisano A, Chiarantoni G, Bossi F, Conti A, DElia V, Tagliente S . Face pareidolia is enhanced by 40 Hz transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) of the face perception network. Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):2035. PMC: 9899232. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-29124-8. View

3.
Furey M, Tanskanen T, Beauchamp M, Avikainen S, Uutela K, Hari R . Dissociation of face-selective cortical responses by attention. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006; 103(4):1065-70. PMC: 1348001. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0510124103. View

4.
Heise M, Mon S, Bowman L . Utility of linear mixed effects models for event-related potential research with infants and children. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2022; 54:101070. PMC: 8987653. DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2022.101070. View

5.
Tong F, Nakayama K, Vaughan J, Kanwisher N . Binocular rivalry and visual awareness in human extrastriate cortex. Neuron. 1998; 21(4):753-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80592-9. View