Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience (Nov 2020)

Detecting (Un)seen Change: The Neural Underpinnings of (Un)conscious Prediction Errors

  • Elise G. Rowe,
  • Elise G. Rowe,
  • Elise G. Rowe,
  • Elise G. Rowe,
  • Naotsugu Tsuchiya,
  • Naotsugu Tsuchiya,
  • Naotsugu Tsuchiya,
  • Naotsugu Tsuchiya,
  • Naotsugu Tsuchiya,
  • Marta I. Garrido,
  • Marta I. Garrido,
  • Marta I. Garrido,
  • Marta I. Garrido

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2020.541670
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14

Abstract

Read online

Detecting changes in the environment is fundamental for our survival. According to predictive coding theory, detecting these irregularities relies both on incoming sensory information and our top–down prior expectations (or internal generative models) about the world. Prediction errors (PEs), detectable in event-related potentials (ERPs), occur when there is a mismatch between the sensory input and our internal model (i.e., a surprise event). Many changes occurring in our environment are irrelevant for survival and may remain unseen. Such changes, even if subtle, can nevertheless be detected by the brain without emerging into consciousness. What remains unclear is how these changes are processed in the brain at the network level. Here, we used a visual oddball paradigm in which participants engaged in a central letter task during electroencephalographic (EEG) recordings while presented with task-irrelevant high- or low-coherence background, random-dot motion. Critically, once in a while, the direction of the dots changed. After the EEG session, we confirmed that changes in motion direction at high- and low-coherence were visible and invisible, respectively, using psychophysical measurements. ERP analyses revealed that changes in motion direction elicited PE regardless of the visibility, but with distinct spatiotemporal patterns. To understand these responses, we applied dynamic causal modeling (DCM) to the EEG data. Bayesian Model Averaging showed visible PE relied on a release from adaptation (repetition suppression) within bilateral MT+, whereas invisible PE relied on adaptation at bilateral V1 (and left MT+). Furthermore, while feedforward upregulation was present for invisible PE, the visible change PE also included downregulation of feedback between right MT+ to V1. Our findings reveal a complex interplay of modulation in the generative network models underlying visible and invisible motion changes.

Keywords