Stage analysis of the reaction process using brain-evoked potentials and reaction time

Mulder, G.; Gloerich, A.B.M.; Brookhuis, Karel; Dellen, H.J. Van; Mulder, L.J.M.

doi:10.1007/bf00308590

Cited by 53 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because experimental effects on latency tend to be somewhat larger for P3 than for N1 components, we decided to shift the EEG data of the experimental trials by 15.625 ms. This reflects a rather small P3 latency effect size but still lies in the range of observed effect sizes (e.g., Callaway, Halliday, Naylor, & Schechter, 1985;Mulder, 1984;Verleger, Neukater, Kompf, & Vieregge, 1991).…”

Section: General Simulation Protocolmentioning

confidence: 79%

Measurement of ERP latency differences: A comparison of single‐participant and jackknife‐based scoring methods

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used computer simulations to evaluate different procedures for measuring changes in the onset latency of a representative range of event-related components (the auditory and visual N1, P3, N2pc, and the frequency-related P3 difference wave). These procedures included several techniques to determine onset latencies combined with approaches using both single-participant average waveforms and jackknife-subsample average waveforms. In general, the jackknife-based approach combined with the relative criterion technique or combined with the fractional area technique (J.C. Hansen & S.A. Hillyard, 1980; S.J. Luck, 2005) provided the most accurate method and the greatest statistical power, with no inflation of Type I error rate.Descriptors: ERP latency, Jackknife, N1, P3, N2pc, Frequency-related P3Research using event-related potentials (ERPs) often focuses on differences in amplitudes as well as differences in latencies of ERP components. However, for both measurements there are several scoring methods, and quite often researchers have to decide rather arbitrarily which method might be most appropriate. In this article we compare several methods for determining ERP latency differences. To evaluate the methods we ran computer simulations based on data of five ERP components: the visual N1, the auditory N1, the P3 (hereafter used to mean the P3b), the N2pc, and the frequency-related P3 component (infrequent minus frequent difference wave).These five components were chosen because they are very different and representative of a broad range of components, as is apparent from the following brief review of these components. The N1 components (visual, auditory) are relatively early components, strongly influenced by physical properties of the stimulus. They are characterized by a clear onset and a sharply increasing amplitude, but clearly reflect different underlying neural generators. In contrast, the P3 is a late component that is relatively insensitive to the physical properties of the stimulus (with the exception of tone intensity; see Covington & Polich, 1996), but is influenced by probabilities, expectations, and resource allocation (see Johnson, 1986). Quite often the P3 does not show a clear onset, and its peak latency is difficult to determine because the component has a wide temporal extension without a sharp peak. The N2pc and frequency-related P3, for their part, are measured from difference waves that are obtained by subtracting ERP waveforms computed at different electrode sites or at same electrode sites but in different experimental conditions. The N2pc is an index of the allocation of visualspatial attention and is isolated by subtracting the ERP at posterior electrode sites ipsilateral to an attended item from the ERP at the corresponding contralateral electrode site, whereas the frequency-related P3 is isolated by subtracting the ERP elicited by frequent targets from the ERP elicited by infrequent targets.For all components, researchers are often interested in estimating the latency differences a...

show abstract

Section: General Simulation Protocolmentioning

confidence: 79%

Measurement of ERP latency differences: A comparison of single‐participant and jackknife‐based scoring methods

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whereas S-R mapping had no effect on the timing of early ERP components, its effect on P300 latency contradicts previous reports with negative findings~e.g., Fiori et al, 1992;Mulder et al, 1984!. Our results indicate that response selection demands affect either the process that generates the P300 component or earlier processes. Previous studies have used either symbolic SRC tasks with variable S-R mappings~e.g., McCarthy & Donchin, 1981! or nonstandard spatial SRC tasks~e.g., Mulder et al, 1984!. As to the significance of these findings for the interpretation of P300 latency, two alternative accounts are possible. Either P300 latency is in some cases sensitive to the duration of response selection, which is consistent with the stimulus evaluation interpretation and the weak PTM hypothesis, or spatially incompatible S-R mappings induce changes in perceptual processing time at least under the conditions of the present study.…”

Section: Performancementioning

confidence: 85%

Postperceptual effects and P300 latency

Leuthold

Sommer

1998

Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

P300 latency is commonly thought to provide a chronometric index of the duration of perceptual processing. Because the evidence in favor of this assumption is controversial, we examined whether P300 latency is influenced by perceptual processes, response selection, and by motoric processes in two experiments using a two-choice spatial stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) task. Both experiments revealed additive effects of perceptual difficulty with spatial SRC in reaction time and P300 latency. In addition, Experiment 2 showed that P300 latency measured in average waveforms is insensitive to motoric processes. The influence of spatial SRC on P300 latency disagrees with the view that P300 latency is sensitive only to stimulus evaluation processes. However, P300 latency may be used to discriminate between influences on premotoric and motoric processing stages. A response conflict account for the SRC effect on P300 latency is suggested.

show abstract

“…In particular, the latency and amplitude of the P300 "component" of the ERP has been found to correlate with the subjective probability of the event to be categorized. Thus, it has been suggested that the P300 is a specific marker of the mental categorization of perceived, and generally rare, stimuli (e.g., Mulder et al, 1984).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modality dependent changes in event-related potentials correlate with specific cognitive functions in nondemented patients with Parkinson's disease

Bódis-Wollner

Borod

Cicero

et al. 1995

J Neural Transm Gen Sect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between event-related potentials (ERPs) and cognitive functioning was studied in patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD) but without dementia. Auditory and visual stimuli were used; 30 subjects participated in the auditory study and 20 in the visual study. Patient groups did not differ with respect to gender, age, education, illness duration, and level of cognitive functioning. Visual stimuli were 2.3 cpd sinusoidal grating patterns randomly presented in an oddball paradigm (oblique vs. vertical spatial orientation). Auditory stimuli were tones presented at 70 dB SPL at a rate of 1.1/second, also using the oddball paradigm (1.5K vs. 1K tones). All patients were given neuropsychological tests to measure verbal fluency, memory, visual spatial perception, and abstract reasoning. P300 and N200 abnormalities correlated with a number of these measures, such that longer ERP latencies were related to lower scores on tests of cognitive functioning. Patterns of results suggest that auditory and visual ERPs correlate with different subsets of neuropsychological functions in nondemented PD patients and that N200 may provide a new metric for clinical use.

show abstract

Stage analysis of the reaction process using brain-evoked potentials and reaction time

Cited by 53 publications

References 22 publications

Measurement of ERP latency differences: A comparison of single‐participant and jackknife‐based scoring methods

Measurement of ERP latency differences: A comparison of single‐participant and jackknife‐based scoring methods

Postperceptual effects and P300 latency

Modality dependent changes in event-related potentials correlate with specific cognitive functions in nondemented patients with Parkinson's disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About