+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Novelty is not enough: laser-evoked potentials are determined by stimulus saliency, not absolute novelty



Novelty is not enough: laser-evoked potentials are determined by stimulus saliency, not absolute novelty



Journal of Neurophysiology 109(3): 692-701



Event-related potentials (ERPs) elicited by transient nociceptive stimuli in humans are largely sensitive to bottom-up novelty induced, for example, by changes in stimulus attributes (e.g., modality or spatial location) within a stream of repeated stimuli. Here we aimed 1) to test the contribution of a selective change of the intensity of a repeated stimulus in determining the magnitude of nociceptive ERPs, and 2) to dissect the effect of this change of intensity in terms of "novelty" and "saliency" (an increase of stimulus intensity is more salient than a decrease of stimulus intensity). Nociceptive ERPs were elicited by trains of three consecutive laser stimuli (S1-S2-S3) delivered to the hand dorsum at a constant 1-s interstimulus interval. Three, equally spaced intensities were used: low (L), medium (M), and high (H). While the intensities of S1 and S2 were always identical (L, M, or H), the intensity of S3 was either identical (e.g., HHH) or different (e.g., MMH) from the intensity of S1 and S2. Introducing a selective change in stimulus intensity elicited significantly larger N1 and N2 waves of the S3-ERP but only when the change consisted in an increase in stimulus intensity. This observation indicates that nociceptive ERPs do not simply reflect processes involved in the detection of novelty but, instead, are mainly determined by stimulus saliency.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 036723096

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23136349

DOI: 10.1152/jn.00464.2012


Related references

Stimulus novelty, and not neural refractoriness, explains the repetition suppression of laser-evoked potentials. Journal of Neurophysiology 104(4): 2116-2124, 2010

Effects of stimulus novelty and dimensional saliency in human shift learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology 98(2): 264-270, 1973

Fluid consumption in lithium-treated rats: roles of stimulus novelty and context novelty. Behavioural Processes 91(2): 164-171, 2012

The influence of stimulus deviance and novelty on the P300 and Novelty P3. Psychophysiology 39(6): 781-790, 2002

Absolute coding of stimulus novelty in the human substantia nigra/VTA. Neuron 51(3): 369-379, 2006

Stimulus novelty, task relevance and the visual evoked potential in man. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 39(2): 131-143, 1975

Effects of novelty on event-related potentials: aging and stimulus replacement. Gerontology 57(4): 364-374, 2011

Effects of stimulus novelty on the late nc component of the event related potentials of the brain in infants. Psychophysiology 28(3A): S5, 1991

Effects of strain, novelty, and NMDA blockade on auditory-evoked potentials in mice. Neuropsychopharmacology 28(4): 675-682, 2003

Intensity dependence of auditory evoked potentials and novelty seeking in abstinent drug addicts. Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology 99(4): 362, 1996

Determinants of laser-evoked EEG responses: pain perception or stimulus saliency?. Journal of Neurophysiology 100(2): 815-828, 2008

Novelty and saliency in attentional capture by unannounced motion singletons. Acta Psychologica 136(3): 290-299, 2011

The emergence of saliency and novelty responses from Reinforcement Learning principles. Neural Networks 21(10): 1493-1499, 2008

The detection of novelty relies on dopaminergic signaling: evidence from apomorphine's impact on the novelty N2. Plos one 8(6): E66469, 2013

The novelty P3 An event-related brain potential sign of the brains evaluation of novelty. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 25(4): 355-373, 2001