PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 6, 2026PLoS ONE0 citationsOpen Access

Rapid invisible frequency tagging (RIFT) does not evoke intermodulation components in the neural response

View Full Paper
AZAlexander ZhigalovOJOle Jensen

Key Points

  • The research aims to determine if rapid invisible frequency tagging (RIFT) produces intermodulation components in neural responses during visual integration.
  • Utilized a visual motion paradigm with RIFT at 56 and 63 Hz
  • Assessed behavioral responses during coherent and incoherent motion
  • Measured pupil dilation in response to different motion types
  • Employed magnetoencephalography (MEG) to evaluate neural response and coherence
  • Participants responded more accurately and faster to coherent motion than incoherent motion
  • Significantly larger pupil diameter was recorded during incoherent motion
  • Strong spectral coherence was observed at 56 Hz and 63 Hz, along with higher harmonics
  • No intermodulation responses were detected at the calculated frequencies

Abstract

The human visual system performs nonlinear integrative operations at multiple stages of visual information processing. For instance, integrating parts of visual stimuli into a coherent object involves coordinated neural processing along the visual hierarchy. However, it remains uncertain whether visual integration manifests in a nonlinear neural response, particularly through intermodulation components in the power spectrum. In this study, we used a visual motion paradigm combined with rapid invisible frequency tagging (RIFT) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) to explore nonlinear characteristics of neural responses associated with visual integration. In this paradigm, two grating patches were moving coherently or incoherently, and were modulated by RIFT at 56 and 63 Hz, respectively. The behavioural results revealed that the participants responded more accurately and faster to probes during coherent compared to incoherent motion. Moreover, the type of motion elicited differential effects on pupil dilation, with significantly larger pupil diameter observed during incoherent motion. To evaluate the neural response to coherent and incoherent motion stimuli, we assessed spectral coherence between MEG and RIFT. We observed a strong coherence at the tagging frequencies (f 1 = 56 and f 2 = 63 Hz) as well as at the higher harmonics at 112 Hz and 126 Hz, respectively. Importantly we did not observe a response at frequencies of the intermodulation (f 2 –f 1 , f 2 + f 1 ); nor did we observe a difference when comparing the coherence and incoherent motion. We conclude that in contrast to studies with low-frequency visible tagging, RIFT does not evoke intermodulation components and therefore, its applicability for investigating the neural mechanisms of visual integration might be limited.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Zhigalov et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69aa70d6531e4c4a9ff5b089https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343916
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper