Absence of direction-specific cross-modal visual-auditory adaptation in motion-onset event-related potentials.

Adaptation to visual or auditory motion affects within-modality motion processing as reflected by visual or auditory free-field motion-onset evoked potentials (VEPs, AEPs). Here, a visual-auditory motion adaptation paradigm was used to investigate the effect of visual motion adaptation on VEPs and AEPs to leftward motion-onset test stimuli. Effects of visual adaptation to (i) scattered light flashes, and motion in the (ii) same or in the (iii) opposite direction of the test stimulus were compared. For the motion-onset VEPs, i.e. the intra-modal adaptation conditions, direction-specific adaptation was observed--the change-N2 (cN2) and change-P2 (cP2) amplitudes were significantly smaller after motion adaptation in the same than in the opposite direction. For the motion-onset AEPs, i.e. the cross-modal adaptation condition, there was an effect of motion history only in the change-P1 (cP1), and this effect was not direction-specific--cP1 was smaller after scatter than after motion adaptation to either direction. No effects were found for later components of motion-onset AEPs. While the VEP results provided clear evidence for the existence of a direction-specific effect of motion adaptation within the visual modality, the AEP findings suggested merely a motion-related, but not a direction-specific effect. In conclusion, the adaptation of veridical auditory motion detectors by visual motion is not reflected by the AEPs of the present study.

Motion-onset auditory-evoked potentials critically depend on history.

The aim of the present study was to determine whether motion history affects motion-onset auditory-evoked potentials (motion-onset AEPs). AEPs were recorded from 33 EEG channels in 16 subjects to the motion onset of a sound (white noise) virtually moving in the horizontal plane at a speed of 60 deg/s from straight ahead to the left (-30 degrees ). AEPs for baseline and adaptation were compared. A stimulus trial comprised three consecutive phases: 2,000 ms adaptation phase, 1,000 ms stationary phase, and 500 ms test phase. During the adaptation phase of the adaptation condition, a sound source moved twice from +30 degrees to -30 degrees to top up preceding adaptation. In the baseline condition, neither top-up nor pre-adaptation were exerted. For both conditions, a stationary sound was presented centrally in the stationary phase, moving leftwards in the test phase. Typical motion-onset AEPs were obtained for the baseline condition, namely a fronto-central response complex dominated by a negative and a positive component, the so-called change-N1 and change-P2 after around 180 and 250 ms, respectively. For the adaptation condition, this complex was shifted significantly into the positive range, indicating that adaptation abolished a negativity within a time window of approximately 160 to 270 ms. A respective shift into the negative range was evident at occipito-parietal sites. In conclusion, while adaptation has to be taken into account as a potential confound in the design of motion-AEP studies, it might also be of benefit in order to isolate AEP correlates of motion processing.