The size of the targets varied from trial to trial. Stimulus size might not only be considered a pure physical property. A large object (e.g., a large animal) may be more important (and potentially e.g., more dangerous) than a small object. A very similar argument may hold true for

eccentricity. A more laterally presented object may tend to elicit an orienting response (e.g., an eye movement toward the object). The GSK126 mouse argument here is that some global physical stimulus features (such as size, eccentricity and color) may already represent a ‘pop-out’ characteristic that elicits reflexive attention and a larger P1. Another interesting question is the following: What happens when two stimulus categories are very similar (or even identical) at the level of global stimulus Venetoclax order features (such as spatial frequency, size, contrast, orientation and second order image statistics) and differ primarily (or even only) at the level of specific features? As an example let us consider the study by Busch et al. (2006a) who used color pictures of familiar, natural objects and unfamiliar ‘nonsense’ objects as targets and non-targets respectively. Unfamiliar objects were obtained by distorting the images of natural objects in a way that spatial frequencies were matched. This resulted in unfamiliar pictures having a very similar ‘stimulus-surface’ as familiar objects with

respect to color and figural elements. The interesting finding of this study was that P1 amplitude differences between familiar Baricitinib and unfamiliar objects were abolished. This finding is consistent with the suggested hypothesis that the P1 reflects early categorization which is based on global stimulus feature. If global stimulus features are very similar between the respective stimulus categories,

the P1 amplitudes will also be of similar size. The earlier discussed findings from Busch et al. (2006b) allow for an even more straight forward interpretation. Large and small targets were defined on the bases of the same stimulus property (orientation of the grating). Despite differences in target size, P1 amplitudes were identical in amplitude size. It should also be emphasized that behaviorally significant changes in P1 can be observed that are independent of stimulus features. As an example, in a speeded reaction time task, Fründ et al. (2007) observed significant changes in P1 amplitude sizes, although the same stimulus (a black square) was presented in all trials. Subjects were instructed to respond with a button press as quickly as possible. To keep them motivated, they received feedback about response latency. Trials were sorted with respect to response speed. P1 amplitude was significantly larger in trials with short response latencies. The interpretation is that fluctuations in attentional top down control during stimulus perception underlie the observed differences in P1 amplitude.