| Paper: | PS-2A.25 | ||
| Session: | Poster Session 2A | ||
| Location: | H Lichthof | ||
| Session Time: | Sunday, September 15, 17:15 - 20:15 | ||
| Presentation Time: | Sunday, September 15, 17:15 - 20:15 | ||
| Presentation: | Poster | ||
| Publication: | 2019 Conference on Cognitive Computational Neuroscience, 13-16 September 2019, Berlin, Germany | ||
| Paper Title: | Clear Evidence for Electrophysiological Signatures of Duration and Rhythm Prediction, but not across Sensory Modalities | ||
| Manuscript: | Click here to view manuscript | ||
| License: |  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. |
||
| DOI: | https://doi.org/10.32470/CCN.2019.1389-0 | ||
| Authors: | Alberto Mariola, Reny Baykova, University of Sussex, United Kingdom; Acer Y.C. Chang, Araya, Japan; Anil K. Seth, Warrick Roseboom, University of Sussex, United Kingdom | ||
| Abstract: | Predicting the timing of events is fundamental for adaptive behaviour. An electrophysiological marker - (temporal) Mismatch Negativity (tMMN) - is often found following violations of expected temporal pattern of event sequences. A confounding factor in interpreting temporal mismatch paradigms is that violations of expected interval are accompanied by violations in feature or rhythmic pattern. Recently, Chang and colleagues (2017) disentangled duration and rhythm in a mismatch paradigm, presenting sequences of visual or auditory pairs with constant or pseudo-random inter-pair-intervals. Multivariate pattern analysis of EEG data replicated tMMN for rhythmic patterns, and additionally found signatures of tMMN specifically for duration. Temporal generalisation analysis showed that signatures of duration prediction violation generalised across sensory modality. However, results were based on only 15 participants, and report accuracy of decoder performance, which is understood to not accurately represent differences. To address these issues, we re-analysed the data, replicating evidence for predictions about auditory duration, and generalization across constant/pseudo-random presentation, though found no evidence that predictions generalized across modality. These results raise questions about the conclusions of the original study. Consequently, we will run a full replication of the study to resolve the precise nature of the electrophysiological correlates of temporal prediction. | ||