Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Experimental paradigm and behavioral results. A, Participants performed a tactile stimulus discrimination task where a 100% valid auditory cue directed attention either to their right or left hand in an EO and an EC condition. Participants had to discriminate between two target frequencies, presented as electrical pulse trains to the cued thumb. B, Accuracy (left panel) and reaction time (right) for the EO and EC conditions. Behavioral performance was significantly worse when participants had their eyes closed both in terms of lower accuracy and slower RT; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Within each boxplot, the horizontal line represents the median, the box delineates the area between the first and third quartiles (interquartile range).
- Figure 2.
Impact of eye closure on overall power. A, Average absolute occipital power (1–13 Hz) during the prestimulus window (t = −1–0 s) for the EC (green) and EO (orange) conditions (shading reflects between-participant SEM). α Power was significantly higher in the EC condition compared with the EO condition. Gray bars indicate significant differences between conditions. B, Topography of significant (masked at p < 0.05) cluster t values for the α band for EO versus EC (as marked in A) on sensor level (left panel) and power distribution of these differences in source space (right). C, Same as panel A for 13–30 Hz. β Power was significantly higher in the EC condition compared with the EO condition. D, Same as panel B for the β band (as marked in C).
- Figure 3.
Impact of eye closure on anticipatory visual α modulation. A, Topography of the normalized prestimulus α power modulation for the attention-left condition (i.e., prestimulus window vs baseline) for EO (left panel) and EC (right). B, Same as A for the attention-right condition. C, Topography of significant (masked at p < 0.05) cluster t values for EO versus EC for the attention-left condition on sensor level (left panel), and power distribution of these differences in source space (right). D, Same as C for the attention-right condition. E, Normalized occipital prestimulus α power for the attention-left condition (included sensors marked in topography inset), showing significant difference between eye conditions. F, Same as E for the attention-right condition; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
- Figure 4.
Localization differences between eye-closure and anticipatory α modulations. A, Distribution of the eye-closure (in blue, left) and anticipatory (in red, right) α modulations in posterior (visual) regions in source space. For visualization purposes, maximas from each modulation were transposed on one hemisphere. B, Maxima coordinates along the x-axis (left), y-axis (middle), and z-axis (right); *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
- Figure 5.
Impact of eye closure on somatosensory α lateralization. A, Topography of the attention-left versus attention-right anticipatory α power modulation for the EO condition (left panel), and power distribution of this modulation in source space (right). This modulation localizes to somatomotor regions with higher α power in ipsilateral and lower α power in contralateral regions. B, Same as A for the EC condition. C, Prestimulus α lateralization index (included sensors marked in topography inset), showing no significant difference between eye conditions.
- Figure 6.
Impact of eye closure on the relationship between α and performance. A, Absolute (non-baseline corrected) prestimulus visual α power in EO (left panel) and EC (right panel) conditions for correct versus incorrect trials. Absolute visual α power was higher for correct trials, regardless of eye condition. B, Same as A for fast versus slow trials. Absolute visual α power was higher for fast trials, regardless of eye condition. C, Same as A for anticipatory visual α modulation (baseline corrected) in EO (left panel) and EC (right panel) conditions for correct versus incorrect trials. Anticipatory visual α power was higher for correct trials, regardless of eye condition. D, Same as C for fast versus slow trials. Anticipatory visual α power was higher for fast trials, regardless of eye condition. E, Same as C for somatosensory α lateralization index. No significant differences were found between conditions. F, Same as E for fast versus slow trials. Somatosensory α lateralization was higher for fast trials, regardless of eye condition; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
- Figure 7.
Information gating and eye closure. In the EO baseline interval, information processing is equivalent across task-relevant somatosensory and task-irrelevant visual regions. Thus, in the prestimulus interval anticipatory modulation drives α levels to the optimal gating threshold at which information flow is gated away from visual regions by inhibiting the processing of visual input. In the EC baseline interval information processing is already diminished because of the absence of visual input. However, α level has not yet reached the optimal threshold to entirely gate information flow. Thus, in the prestimulus interval, α level is further heightened to reach the gating threshold and thus inhibiting information processing in visual regions. Please note green arrows indicate general information flow rather than information flow to a certain region.
In this issue
