Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7104426

Biofeedback produced slow brain potentials and task performance.

W Lutzenberger·T Elbert·B Rockstroh·N Birbaumer
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Twenty subjects learned to control slow potential (SP) shifts of the brain by means of a biofeedback procedure. Depending upon the pitch of a signal tone, negative SP shifts had to be increased or reduced during intervals of 6 sec each. Visual feedback of the actual SP shift was given. Blocks of training trials alternated with blocks of test trials without any feedback of the SPs. At the end of every test trial a simple arithmetic problem had to be solved by the subjects. Subjects performed the computation in a shorter time interval if an increased negativity preceded task onset as compared to slower response times during suppression of negativity. Results suggest that cortical negativity reflects unspecific preparation for cerebral performance.

Explore related subjects

AttentionBiofeedback, PsychologyElectroencephalographyEvoked PotentialsHumansMaleProblem SolvingJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W Lutzenberger, T Elbert, B Rockstroh, N Birbaumer. Biofeedback produced slow brain potentials and task performance.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0511(82)90018-7

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Multisensory attention and tactile information-processing.

Although a great deal is now known about the peripheral sensory mechanisms involved in tactile information processing [Ann Rev Psychol 1990;50:305], it is only more recently that we have started to gain a clearer understanding of the effects of selective attention on tactile perception [Front Biosci 2000;5:D894]. To date, the majority of this selective attention research has considered each modality in isolation. However, in order to deal with the multimodal selection problems of everyday life, we need to be able to coordinate our selective attention cross-modally [Philos Trans R Soc, Sec B 1998:353; Curr Biol 2000;10:R731]. In this review, I will highlight the results of behavioral studies demonstrating the existence of extensive cross-modal links in selective attention between touch, vision, audition, and even olfaction. In particular, the review is structured around two key research questions: First, "Can attention can be selectively directed to a particular sensory modality?", and second "Are there cross-modal links in spatial attention?". The results of recent neuroimaging studies that have started to elucidate some of the neural mechanisms underlying these cross-modal attentional effects are also discussed, and potential questions for future research outlined.

Attention↗
PubMed2002

Enhanced tactile performance at the destination of an upcoming saccade.

Previous work has demonstrated that upcoming saccades influence visual and auditory performance even for stimuli presented before the saccade is executed. These studies suggest a close relationship between saccade generation and visual/auditory attention. Furthermore, they provide support for Rizzolatti et al.'s premotor model of attention, which suggests that the same circuits involved in motor programming are also responsible for shifts in covert orienting (shifting attention without moving the eyes or changing posture). In a series of experiments, we demonstrate that saccade programming also affects tactile perception. Participants made speeded saccades to the left and right side as well as tactile discriminations of up versus down. The first experiment demonstrates that participants were reliably faster at responding to tactile stimuli near the location of upcoming saccades. In our second experiment, we had the subjects cross their hands and demonstrated that the effect occurs in visual space (rather than the early representations of touch). In our third experiment, the tactile events usually occurred on the opposite side of upcoming eye movement. We found that the benefit at the saccade target location vanished, suggesting that this shift is not obligatory but that it may be vetoed on the basis of expectation.

Attention↗
PubMed2002

Signals invisible to the collicular and magnocellular pathways can capture visual attention.

The retinal projection to the superior colliculus is thought to be important both for stimulus-driven eye movements and for the involuntary capture of attention. It has further been argued that eye-movement planning and attentional orienting share common neural mechanisms. Electrophysiological studies have shown that the superior colliculus receives no direct projections from short-wave-sensitive cones (S cones), and, consistent with this, we found that irrelevant peripheral stimuli visible only to S cones did not produce the saccadic distractor effect produced by luminance stimuli. However, when involuntary orienting was tested in a Posner cueing task, the same S-cone stimuli had normal attentional effects, in that they accelerated or delayed responses to subsequent targets. We conclude that involuntary attentional shifts do not require signals in the direct collicular pathway, or indeed the magnocellular pathway, as our S-cone stimuli were invisible to this channel also.

Attention↗