1976
DOI: 10.3758/bf03326547
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evoked potential correlates of visual item recognition during memory-scanning tasks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
39
0
1

Year Published

1979
1979
1995
1995

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 121 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
6
39
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…P3 latency can therefore be used to determine which processing stages are affected by set size during visual search: If the effects ofset size on RT for conjunction targets are due to an increase in the duration of stimulus evaluation, then the slopes relating P31atency and RT to set size should be identical. A similar logic has been used to interpret ERPs recorded during memory search tasks (see, e.g., Adam & Collins, 1978;Ford, Roth, Mohs, Hopkins, & Kopell, 1979;Gomer, Spicuzza, & O'Donnell, 1976;Michalewski, Patterson, Pratt, Barret, & Starr, 1988). In these experiments, P31atency increased linearly as a function of memory set size, but the slope was shallower for P3 latency than for RT, suggesting that part of the effect of memory set size on RT was due to postrecognition processes.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…P3 latency can therefore be used to determine which processing stages are affected by set size during visual search: If the effects ofset size on RT for conjunction targets are due to an increase in the duration of stimulus evaluation, then the slopes relating P31atency and RT to set size should be identical. A similar logic has been used to interpret ERPs recorded during memory search tasks (see, e.g., Adam & Collins, 1978;Ford, Roth, Mohs, Hopkins, & Kopell, 1979;Gomer, Spicuzza, & O'Donnell, 1976;Michalewski, Patterson, Pratt, Barret, & Starr, 1988). In these experiments, P31atency increased linearly as a function of memory set size, but the slope was shallower for P3 latency than for RT, suggesting that part of the effect of memory set size on RT was due to postrecognition processes.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…P260, and its associated principal component 5, probably corresponds to human P300. Their polarities and latencies correspond well, especially for easily distinguishable stimuli [ 11,33,35]. P26O's complex interaction of controlling factors (component 5 condition-location-stimulus interaction) is comparable to that of human P300 (e.g.…”
Section: Endogenous Componentsmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…The result that non-informative feedback (white noise) elicited the largest P300 amplitude in the DE SW ART, KOK, AND DAS-SMAAL coding of stimulus characteristics (Squires et al, 1977;Kutas et al, 1977;Gomer, Spicuzza, & O'Donnell, 1976;Kok, Note 1). In the ConceptIdentification task of the present study, the feedback stimuli were easy to discriminate, familiar, not complex, and not presented in a degraded way.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%