The N1-suppression effect for self-initiated sounds is independent of attention

BMC Neuroscience

Erich Schröger¹  Katja Saupe¹  Iria SanMiguel¹  Jana Timm¹ 

[1] Institute of Psychology, University of Leipzig, Seeburgstr. 14-20, Leipzig, D-04103, Germany

关键词: Predictive processing;    Attention;    Auditory N1 component;    Sensory suppression;    Event-related brain potentials;   

Others  :  1140618
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2202-14-2

 received in 2012-08-17, accepted in 2012-12-29,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

If we initiate a sound by our own motor behavior, the N1 component of the auditory event-related brain potential (ERP) that the sound elicits is attenuated compared to the N1 elicited by the same sound when it is initiated externally. It has been suggested that this N1 suppression results from an internal predictive mechanism that is in the service of discriminating the sensory consequences of one’s own actions from other sensory input. As the N1-suppression effect is becoming a popular approach to investigate predictive processing in cognitive and social neuroscience, it is important to exclude an alternative interpretation not related to prediction. According to the attentional account, the N1 suppression is due to a difference in the allocation of attention between self- and externally-initiated sounds. To test this hypothesis, we manipulated the allocation of attention to the sounds in different blocks: Attention was directed either to the sounds, to the own motor acts or to visual stimuli. If attention causes the N1-suppression effect, then manipulating attention should affect the effect for self-initiated sounds.

Results

We found N1 suppression in all conditions. The N1 per se was affected by attention, but there was no interaction between attention and self-initiation effects. This implies that self-initiation N1 effects are not caused by attention.

Conclusions

The present results support the assumption that the N1-suppression effect for self-initiated sounds indicates the operation of an internal predictive mechanism. Furthermore, while attention had an influence on the N1a, N1b, and N1c components, the N1-suppression effect was confined to the N1b and N1c subcomponents suggesting that the major contribution to the auditory N1-suppression effect is circumscribed to late N1 components.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Timm et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Wolpert DM, Ghaharamani Z, Jorden MI: An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science 1995, 269:1180-1182.
• [2]Wolpert DM, Ghaharamani Z: Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 2000, 3:1212-1217.
• [3]Wolpert DM, Flanagan JR: Motor prediction. Curr Biol 2001, 11:R729-R732.
• [4]Von Holst E, Mittelstaedt H: Das Reafferenzprinzip. Naturwissenschaften 1950, 37:464-467.
• [5]Sperry RW: Neural basis of the spontaneous optokinetic response produced by visual inversion. J Comp Physiol Psychol 1950, 43:482-489.
• [6]Blakemore SJ, Wolpert DM, Frith C: Why can’t you tickle yourself? Neuroreport 2000, 11:R11-R16.
• [7]Weiskrantz L, Elliott J, Darlington C: Preliminary observations on tickling oneself. Nature 1971, 230:598-599.
• [8]Aliu SO, Houde JF, Nagarajan SS: Motor-induced suppression of the auditory cortex. J Cogn Neurosci 2009, 21:791-802.
• [9]Baess P, Jacobsen T, Schroger E: Suppression of the auditory N1 event-related potential component with unpredictable self-initiated tones: evidence for internal forward models with dynamic stimulation. Int J Psychophysiol 2008, 70(2):137-143.
• [10]Ford JM, Gray M, Faustman WO, Roach BJ, Manthalon DH: Dissecting corollary discharge dysfunction in schizophrenia. Psychophysiology 2007, 44:522-529.
• [11]Knolle F, Schröger E, Baess P, Kotz SA: The cerebellum generates motor-to-auditory predictions: ERP lesion evidence. J Cogn Neurosci 2012, 24:698-706.
• [12]Martikainen MH, Kaneko K, Hari R: Suppressed responses to self-triggered sounds in the human auditory cortex. Cereb Cortex 2005, 15:299-302.
• [13]McCarthy G, Donchin E: The effects of temporal and event uncertainty in determining the waveforms of the auditory event related potential (ERP). Psychophysiology 1976, 13:581-590.
• [14]Schafer EW, Marcus MM: Self-stimulation alters human sensory brain responses. Science 1973, 181:175-177.
• [15]Hughes G, Desantis A, Waszak F: Mechanisms of intentional binding and sensory attenuation: the role of temporal prediction, temporal control, identity prediction, and motor prediction. Psychol Bull 2012. Advance online publication
• [16]Baess P, Horvath J, Jacobsen T, Schröger E: Selective suppression of self-initiated sounds in an auditory stream: an ERP study. Psychophysiology 2011, 48:1276-1283.
• [17]Horvath J, Maess B, Baess P, Toth A: Action-sound coincidences suppress evoked responses of the human auditory cortex in EEG and MEG. J Cogn Neurosci 2012, 24:1919-1931.
• [18]Hillyard SA, Hink RF, Schwent VL, Picton TW: Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain. Science 1973, 182:177-180.
• [19]Hillyard SA: Selective auditory attention and early event-related potentials: a rejoinder. Can J Psychol 1981, 35:159-174.
• [20]Nobre AC: Orienting attention to instants in time. Neuropsychologia 2010, 39:1317-1328.
• [21]Alho K, Vorobyev VA: Brain activity during selective listening to natural speech. Front Biosci 2007, 12:3167-3176.
• [22]Horvath J, Winkler I: Distraction in a continuous-stimulation detection task. Biol Psychol 2010, 83:229-238.
• [23]Logan GD: Attention in character-classification tasks: evidence for the automaticity of component stages. J Exp Psychol 1978, 107:32-63.
• [24]Logan GD: On the use of a concurrent memory load to measure attention and automaticity. J Exp Psychol 1979, 5:189-207.
• [25]Näätänen R, Picton TW: The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: a review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology 1987, 24:375-425.
• [26]Woods DL: The component structure of the N1 wave of the human auditory evoked potential. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1995, 44:102-109.
• [27]Lange K: The reduced N1 to self-generated tones: an effect of temporal predictability? Psychophysiology 2011, 48:1-8.
• [28]Kudo N, Nakagome K, Kasai K, Araki T, Fukuda M, Kato N, Iwanami A: Effects of corollary discharge on event-related potentials during selective attention task in healthy men and women. Neurosci Res 2004, 48:59-64.
• [29]Eliades SJ, Wang X: Sensory-motor interaction in the primate auditory cortex during self-initiated vocalizations. J Neurophysiol 2003, 89:2194-2207.
• [30]Müller-Preuss P, Ploog D: Inhibition of auditory cortical neurons during phonation. Brain Res 1981, 215:61-76.
• [31]Makeig S, Müller M, Rockstroh B: Effects of voluntary movements on early auditory brain responses. Exp Brain Res 1996, 110:487-492.
• [32]Kahneman D, Treisman A: Changing views of attention and automaticity. In Varieties of attention. Edited by Parasuraman D. New York: Academic Press; 1984:29-61.
• [33]Hackley SA: An evaluation of the automaticity of sensory processing using event-related potentials and brain-stem reflexes. Psychophysiology 1993, 5:415-428.
• [34]Alho K, Woods DL, Algazi A: Processing of auditory stimuli during auditory and visual attention as revealed by event-related potentials. Psychophysiology 1994, 31:469-479.
• [35]Giard MH, Perrin J, Peronnet F: Several attention-related wave forms in auditory areas: a topographic study. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1988, 69:371-384.
• [36]Woldorff MG, Hillyard SA: Modulation of early auditory processing during selective listening to rapidly presented tones. Electroencephalogra Clin Neurophysiol 1991, 79:170-191.
• [37]Talsma D, Kok A: Nonspatial intermodal selective attention is mediated by sensory brain areas: evidence from event-related potentials. Psychophysiology 2001, 38:736-751.
• [38]Talsma D, Kok A: Intermodal spatial attention differs between vision and audition: an event-related potential analysis. Psychophysiology 2002, 39:689-706.
• [39]Salmi J, Rinne T, Koistinen S, Salonen O, Alho K: Brain networks of bottom-up triggered and top-down controlled shifting of auditory attention. Brain Res 2009, 1286:155-164.
• [40]Budd TW, Barry RJ, Gordon E, Rennie C, Michie PT: Decrement of the N1 auditory event-related potential with stimulus repetition: habituation vs. refractoriness. Int J Psychophysiol 1998, 31:51-68.
• [41]Chatrian GE, Lettich E, Nelson PL: Ten percent electrode system for topographic studies of spontaneous and evoked EEG activities. Am J Electroencephalogr Technol 1985, 25:83-92.
• [42]Schlögl A, Keinrath C, Zimmermann D, Scherer R, Leeb R, Pfurtscheller G: A fully automated correction method of EOG artifacts in EEG recordings. Clin Psychol 2007, 118:98-104.
• [43]Wolpaw JR, Pentry JK: A temporal component of the auditory evoked response. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1975, 39:609-620.
• [44]Perrin F, Pernier J, Bertrand O, Echallier JF: Spherical splines for scalp potential and current density mapping. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1989, 72:184-187.
• [45]Perrin F, Pernier J, Bertrand O, Echallier JF: Corrigendum. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1990, 76:565.