PsycEXTRA Dataset 1965
DOI: 10.1037/e469432008-089
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evoked Responses to Relevant and Irrelevant Visual Stimuli While Problem Solving

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

1968
1968
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When manipulated by a cognitive task with separable task conditions, ERPs and their underlying components can provide direct, quantitative indices of abstract cognitive processes. ERP components can reflect brain activity both in time (high resolution on the order of milliseconds) and in space (electrode location), and their behavior under task conditions has been correlated with memory (Begleiter et al, 1993; Chapman et al, 1978a; Chapman et al, 1981; Friedman et al, 1978; Polich, 2007; Ruchkin et al, 1990; Rugg and Curran, 2007), recognition and familiarity (Morgan et al, 2008; Pfütze et al, 2002; Trenner et al, 2004), semantic meaning (Chapman et al, 1978b), stimulus expectancy (Arbel et al, 2010; Walter et al, 1964), executive functioning (Begleiter and Porjesz, 1975), and stimulus relevance (Chapman and Bragdon, 1964; Chapman, 1965; Chapman et al, 2013), among others. While anatomical imaging methods, such as PET and MRI, may indicate where activity occurs during memory storage and processing, their poor temporal resolution (on the order of seconds) makes it difficult to separate the early post-stimulus sequence of events (Missonnier et al, 2004), including sensory processing, memory storage, and later executive functions such as solving the task.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…When manipulated by a cognitive task with separable task conditions, ERPs and their underlying components can provide direct, quantitative indices of abstract cognitive processes. ERP components can reflect brain activity both in time (high resolution on the order of milliseconds) and in space (electrode location), and their behavior under task conditions has been correlated with memory (Begleiter et al, 1993; Chapman et al, 1978a; Chapman et al, 1981; Friedman et al, 1978; Polich, 2007; Ruchkin et al, 1990; Rugg and Curran, 2007), recognition and familiarity (Morgan et al, 2008; Pfütze et al, 2002; Trenner et al, 2004), semantic meaning (Chapman et al, 1978b), stimulus expectancy (Arbel et al, 2010; Walter et al, 1964), executive functioning (Begleiter and Porjesz, 1975), and stimulus relevance (Chapman and Bragdon, 1964; Chapman, 1965; Chapman et al, 2013), among others. While anatomical imaging methods, such as PET and MRI, may indicate where activity occurs during memory storage and processing, their poor temporal resolution (on the order of seconds) makes it difficult to separate the early post-stimulus sequence of events (Missonnier et al, 2004), including sensory processing, memory storage, and later executive functions such as solving the task.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Much work has been reported on maintenance, rehearsal, and retrieval, but little is known about the timing or exact sequence of events that occur when items are first stored in working memory (Baddeley, 2003; Missonnier et al, 2004). The task-relevant ERP component P300 (Hillyard and Picton, 1987) was first reported roughly fifty years ago (Chapman and Bragdon, 1964; Chapman, 1965) and has been extensively studied in the context of working memory (for a review, see (Kutas, 1988), (Polich, 2007), and (Polich, 2012)). The P300 component and its subcomponents of P3a and P3b are commonly linked to a host of memory operations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, at no time was S able to anticipate any stimulus with greater-thanchance expectancy. This procedure eliminated the possibility that changes in S's attentive state (Chapman, 1965;Chapman & Bragdon, 1964), posture (Nakayama, 1965) 450-msec evoked potential, as a function of stimulus conditions. It may be seen that grouping on two dimensions produces a more marked decrement of evoked potential amplitude than does grouping on just one dimension.…”
Section: Equipmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After it was recognized that the evoked responses to relevant stimuli were larger than those to nonrelevent stimuli (Chapman, 1965), several investigations set about establishing the parameters of the response which measured such relevance (Beck, 1975;Donchin et al, 1967Donchin et al, , 1969Donchin et al, , 1970. It became clear that the major characteristic of the evoked response sensitive to cognitive function is the large positive peak which occurs between 200 and 500 msec poststimulus.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%