scholarly journals Exteroceptive expectations modulate interoceptive processing: repetition-suppression effects for visual and heartbeat evoked potentials

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda C. Marshall ◽  
Antje Gentsch ◽  
Valentina Jelinčić ◽  
Simone Schütz-Bosbach
2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (12) ◽  
pp. 1933-1946 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah M. Kark ◽  
Scott D. Slotnick ◽  
Elizabeth A. Kensinger

Most studies using a recognition memory paradigm examine the neural processes that support the ability to consciously recognize past events. However, there can also be nonconscious influences from the prior study episode that reflect repetition suppression effects—a reduction in the magnitude of activity for repeated presentations of stimuli—that are revealed by comparing neural activity associated with forgotten items to correctly rejected novel items. The present fMRI study examined the effect of emotional valence (positive vs. negative) on repetition suppression effects. Using a standard recognition memory task, 24 participants viewed line drawings of previously studied negative, positive, and neutral photos intermixed with novel line drawings. For each item, participants made an old–new recognition judgment and a sure–unsure confidence rating. Collapsed across valence, repetition suppression effects were found in ventral occipital-temporal cortex and frontal regions. Activity levels in the majority of these regions were not modulated by valence. However, repetition enhancement of the amygdala and ventral occipital-temporal cortex functional connectivity reflected nonconscious memory for negative items. In this study, valence had little effect on activation patterns but had a larger effect on functional connectivity patterns that were markers of nonconscious memory. Beyond memory and emotion, these findings are relevant to other cognitive and social neuroscientists that utilize fMRI repetition effects to investigate perception, attention, social cognition, and other forms of learning and memory.


2010 ◽  
Vol 104 (4) ◽  
pp. 2116-2124 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. L. Wang ◽  
A. Mouraux ◽  
M. Liang ◽  
G. D. Iannetti

Brief radiant laser pulses selectively activate skin nociceptors and elicit transient brain responses (laser-evoked potentials [LEPs]). When LEPs are elicited by pairs of stimuli (S1–S2) delivered at different interstimulus intervals (ISIs), the S2-LEP is strongly reduced at short ISIs (250 ms) and progressively recovers at longer ISIs (2,000 ms). This finding has been interpreted in terms of order of arrival of nociceptive volleys and refractoriness of neural generators of LEPs. However, an alternative explanation is the modulation of another experimental factor: the novelty of the eliciting stimulus. To test this alternative hypothesis, we recorded LEPs elicited by pairs of nociceptive stimuli delivered at four ISIs (250, 500, 1,000, 2,000 ms), using two different conditions. In the constant condition, the ISI was identical across the trials of each block, whereas in the variable condition, the ISI was varied randomly across trials and single-stimulus trials were intermixed with paired trials. Therefore the time of occurrence of S2 was both less novel and more predictable in the constant than in the variable condition. In the constant condition, we observed a significant ISI-dependent suppression of the biphasic negative–positive wave (N2–P2) complex of the S2-LEP. In contrast, in the variable condition, the S2-LEP was completely unaffected by stimulus repetition. The pain ratings elicited by S2 were not different in the two conditions. These results indicate that the repetition-suppression of the S2-LEP is not due to refractoriness in nociceptive afferent pathways, but to a modulation of novelty and/or temporal predictability of the eliciting stimulus. This provides further support to the notion that stimulus saliency constitutes a crucial determinant of LEP magnitude and that a significant fraction of the brain activity time-locked to a brief and transient sensory stimulus is not directly related to the quality and the intensity of the corresponding sensation, but to bottom-up attentional processes.


Hippocampus ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 557-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig J. Brozinsky ◽  
Andrew P. Yonelinas ◽  
Neal E.A. Kroll ◽  
Charan Ranganath

2020 ◽  
Vol 173 ◽  
pp. 107269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamin Kim ◽  
Liang-Tien Hsieh ◽  
Josef Parvizi ◽  
Charan Ranganath

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document