Display options
Cite
Mensen A, Marshall W, Tononi G. EEG Differentiation Analysis and Stimulus Set Meaningfulness. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1748doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01748.
Mensen, A., Marshall, W., & Tononi, G. (2017). EEG Differentiation Analysis and Stimulus Set Meaningfulness. Frontiers in psychology, 81748. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01748
Mensen, Armand, et al. "EEG Differentiation Analysis and Stimulus Set Meaningfulness." Frontiers in psychology vol. 8 (2017): 1748. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01748
Mensen A, Marshall W, Tononi G. EEG Differentiation Analysis and Stimulus Set Meaningfulness. Front Psychol. 2017 Oct 06;8:1748. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01748. eCollection 2017. PMID: 29056921; PMCID: PMC5635725.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2017 Oct 06;8:1748. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01748. eCollection 2017.

EEG Differentiation Analysis and Stimulus Set Meaningfulness.

Frontiers in psychology

Armand Mensen, William Marshall, Giulio Tononi

Affiliations

  1. Center for Sleep and Consciousness, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
  2. Department of Neurology, Inselspital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

PMID: 29056921 PMCID: PMC5635725 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01748

Abstract

A set of images can be considered as meaningfully different for an observer if they can be distinguished phenomenally from one another. Each phenomenal difference must be supported by some neurophysiological differences. Differentiation analysis aims to quantify neurophysiological differentiation evoked by a given set of stimuli to assess its meaningfulness to the individual observer. As a proof of concept using high-density EEG, we show increased neurophysiological differentiation for a set of natural, meaningfully different images in contrast to another set of artificially generated, meaninglessly different images in nine participants. Stimulus-evoked neurophysiological differentiation (over 257 channels, 800 ms) was systematically greater for meaningful vs. meaningless stimulus categories both at the group level and for individual subjects. Spatial breakdown showed a central-posterior peak of differentiation, consistent with the visual nature of the stimulus sets. Temporal breakdown revealed an early peak of differentiation around 110 ms, prominent in the central-posterior region; and a later, longer-lasting peak at 300-500 ms that was spatially more distributed. The early peak of differentiation was not accompanied by changes in mean ERP amplitude, whereas the later peak was associated with a higher amplitude ERP for meaningful images. An ERP component similar to visual-awareness-negativity occurred during the nadir of differentiation across all image types. Control stimulus sets and further analysis indicate that changes in neurophysiological differentiation between meaningful and meaningless stimulus sets could not be accounted for by spatial properties of the stimuli or by stimulus novelty and predictability.

Keywords: EEG; differentiation; event-related potentials (ERPs); images; meaningfulness

References

  1. J Neurosci. 2013 Nov 27;33(48):18814-24 - PubMed
  2. Sci Transl Med. 2013 Aug 14;5(198):198ra105 - PubMed
  3. Cortex. 2013 Jan;49(1):327-35 - PubMed
  4. Neuroimage. 2009 Jan 1;44(1):83-98 - PubMed
  5. Cereb Cortex. 2013 Jan;23(1):187-97 - PubMed
  6. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Oct 7;111(40):14565-70 - PubMed
  7. Conscious Cogn. 2011 Sep;20(3):972-83 - PubMed
  8. Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Aug;17(8):401-12 - PubMed
  9. Neuroimage. 2016 Aug 15;137:188-200 - PubMed
  10. J Neurosci. 2015 Aug 5;35(31):10940-8 - PubMed
  11. Neuroimage. 2013 Feb 15;67:111-8 - PubMed
  12. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Jan;7(1):12-18 - PubMed
  13. Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6 - PubMed
  14. Neuroimage. 2016 May 15;132:59-70 - PubMed
  15. J Vis. 2009 Apr 30;9(4):29.1-15 - PubMed
  16. Front Psychol. 2011 Aug 23;2:198 - PubMed
  17. J Vis. 2008 Sep 23;8(12):9.1-13 - PubMed
  18. Front Psychol. 2016 Jun 28;7:926 - PubMed
  19. Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Sep;1(3):204-20 - PubMed
  20. Curr Biol. 2003 Jun 17;13(12):1038-41 - PubMed
  21. J Vis. 2008 Mar 26;8(3):21.1-12 - PubMed
  22. Brain Topogr. 2014 Jul;27(4):500-26 - PubMed
  23. J Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Aug;22(8):1852-69 - PubMed
  24. J Neurosci Methods. 2015 Jul 30;250:85-93 - PubMed
  25. Front Psychol. 2014 Oct 08;5:1078 - PubMed
  26. Exp Brain Res. 2014 Jun;232(6):1989-97 - PubMed
  27. Front Psychol. 2014 Oct 30;5:1250 - PubMed
  28. Nat Neurosci. 2011 Aug 14;14(9):1195-201 - PubMed
  29. Neural Comput. 2008 Feb;20(2):486-503 - PubMed
  30. J Neurosci Methods. 2004 Mar 15;134(1):9-21 - PubMed
  31. PLoS One. 2015 May 13;10(5):e0125337 - PubMed
  32. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2015 Mar;1339:106-15 - PubMed
  33. PLoS One. 2015 Aug 21;10(8):e0135697 - PubMed
  34. Front Syst Neurosci. 2008 Nov 24;2:4 - PubMed
  35. Front Psychol. 2013 Dec 11;4:907 - PubMed
  36. PLoS One. 2010 Dec 30;5(12):e14465 - PubMed
  37. J Vis. 2014 Oct 09;14(12):null - PubMed
  38. PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(10):e1002726 - PubMed
  39. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2014 Feb;33(2):65-71 - PubMed
  40. Brain Stimul. 2015 Jan-Feb;8(1):142-9 - PubMed
  41. Cereb Cortex. 2015 Oct;25(10):3602-12 - PubMed
  42. Neuropsychologia. 2009 Nov;47(13):2891-9 - PubMed
  43. Behav Brain Sci. 2007 Dec;30(5-6):481-99; discussion 499-548 - PubMed

Publication Types