A brief introduction to the use of event-related potentials in studies of perception and attention

Abstract

Due to the precise temporal resolution of electrophysiological recordings, the event-related potential (ERP) technique has proven particularly valuable for testing theories of perception and attention. Here, I provide a brief tutorial of the ERP technique for consumers of such research and those considering the use of human electrophysiology in their own work. My discussion begins with the basics regarding what brain activity ERPs measure and why they are well suited to reveal critical aspects of perceptual processing, attentional selection, and cognition that are unobservable with behavioral methods alone. I then review a number of important methodological issues and often forgotten facts that should be considered when evaluating or planning ERP experiments.

How to withhold or replace a prepotent response: An analysis of the underlying control processes and their temporal dynamics

“…Several procedures (which are discussed in more detail in the General Discussion) have been proposed to disentangle the activation patterns, but they can be complex. Furthermore, the refractoriness of ERPs could still lead to a false assessment of signal trial amplitudes (Woodman, 2010). To address these issues, the present experiments introduce a hybrid version of the stop-signal task and the cued go/nogo task (note that it also shares some features with the responsepriming paradigm; see Schmidt, Haberkamp, & Schmidt, 2011 for a review of the original response-priming tasks).…”

The Effects of Electrical Brain Stimulation Upon Visual Attention and Neglect

“…Both, the N2pc as well as the sustained posterior contralateral negative ERP (SPCN), two negative deflections of the ERP at approximately 200 ms and 300-600 ms following stimulus onset, respectively, were smaller in low than in high performers. The N2pc at 200-ms peaks at posterior sites (PO7 and PO8) contralateral to the attended hemispace; its amplitude has been observed to be greater when people detect a change versus when a change is missed (Eimer & Mazza, 2005;Tseng et al, 2012) and has been closely related to the deployment of visual attention (Eimer, 1996;Jolicoeur, Brisson, & Robitaille, 2008;Luck & Hillyard, 1994;Woodman, 2010;Woodman, Arita, & Luck, 2009). The SPCN, following the N2pc at 300-600 ms (Jolicoeur et al, 2008), rather relates to the maintenance and access of visual short-term memory, as its amplitude varies according to memory load, persisting over the entire retention interval (Eimer & Kiss, 2010;Jolicoeur et al, 2008).…”

Safe and sensible baseline correction of pupil-size data

“…However, despite these disadvantages, subtractive baseline correction may be Manuscript in preparation [v1.1.3;Fri Jan 13 12:31:19 2017;#324bb4c] the natural choice for some researchers because it is the standard approach in EEG research (e.g. Gross et al, 2013;Woodman, 2010).…”