Using the jackknife‐based scoring method for measuring LRP onset effects in factorial designs

Ulrich, Rolf; Miller, Jeff

doi:10.1111/1469-8986.3850816

Cited by 369 publications

(279 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

277

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To reduce the impact of high-frequency noise on the onset detection, additional filtering with a high cut-off of 8 Hz was applied before the LRP onsets were computed. The LRP onsets were computed using the jackknifing method (Miller et al, 1998;Smulders, 2010;Ulrich & Miller, 2001). The (relative) onset of the LRP was defined as the point in time in which activation exceeded -0.5 µV.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The cognitive mechanisms underlying deception: An event-related potential study

Suchotzki

Crombez

Smulders

et al. 2015

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cognitive view on deception proposes that lying comes with a cognitive cost. This view is supported by the finding that lying typically takes longer than truth telling. Event-related potentials (ERPs) provide a means to unravel the cognitive processes underlying this cost.Using a mock-crime design, the current study (n = 20) investigated the effects of deception on the Contingent Negative Variation (CNV), the Lateralized Readiness Potential (LRP), the Correct Response Negativity (CRN), and the stimulus-locked N200 and P300 components. In line with previous research, lying resulted in more errors, longer reaction times (RTs) and longer RT standard deviations compared to truthful responses. A marginally significant effect suggested a stronger CNV for the anticipation of lying compared to the anticipation of truth telling. There were no significant deception effects on the stimulus-and the response-locked LRPs. Unexpectedly, we found a significantly larger CRN for truth telling compared to lying.Additional analyses revealed an enhanced N200 and a decreased P300 for lying compared to truth telling. Our results support the cognitive load hypothesis for lying, yet are mixed regarding the response conflict hypothesis. Results are discussed with regard to the specific characteristics of our design and their theoretical and applied implications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The cognitive mechanisms underlying deception: An event-related potential study

Suchotzki

Crombez

Smulders

et al. 2015

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because several participants did not conform to the majority response on too few trials, LRPs were analysed only for a subsample of 31 participants (with 5.8% trials excluded due to artifacts). LRPs were extracted using the doublesubtraction and averaging method (Eimer, 1998) Miller et al, 1998; using a relative criterion of 30% of the maximum amplitude revealed identical results, Ulrich and Miller, 2001). Onset latencies were then entered in a 2 (condition) Â 2 (response type: conform vs non-conform) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor.…”

Section: Eeg Recording and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Social conformity is due to biased stimulus processing: electrophysiological and diffusion analyses

Germar

Albrecht

Voss

et al. 2016

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hundreds of studies have found that humans' decisions are strongly influenced by the opinions of others, even when making simple perceptual decisions. In this study, we aimed to clarify whether this effect can be explained by social influence biasing (early) perceptual processes. We employed stimulus evoked potentials, lateralized readiness potentials (LRPs) and a diffusion model analysis of reaction time data to uncover the neurocognitive processes underlying social conformity in perceptual decision-making. The diffusion model analysis showed that social conformity was due to a biased uptake of stimulus information and accompanied by more careful stimulus processing. As indicated by larger N1-amplitudes, social influence increased early attentional resources for stimulus identification and discrimination. Furthermore, LRP analyses revealed that stimulus processing was biased even in cases of non-conformity. In conclusion, our results suggest that the opinion of others can cause individuals to selectively process stimulus information supporting this opinion, thereby inducing social conformity. This effect is present even when individuals do not blindly follow the majority but rather carefully process stimulus information.

show abstract

“…and then averaged. This elegant procedure allows for estimates that are much more reliable than those from single participants, without altering the average trajectories (Ulrich & Miller, 2001). Finally, F tests and standard error bars were corrected to estimate variation among participants, rather than among subsamples.…”

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kinematic parameters of trajectories and spatial priming functions were extracted by jackknifing methods (Ulrich & Miller, 2001). Pointing trajectories of the n participants were averaged across each subsample of (n 1) participants, excluding a different participant from each subsample.…”

Section: Experiments 1: Animal-object and Large-small Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing of natural images is feedforward: A simple behavioral test

Schmidt

2009

Attention, Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural images can be classified so rapidly that it has been suggested that their analysis is based on a first single pass of processing activity through the visuomotor system. We tested this theory in a visuomotor priming task in which speeded pointing responses were performed toward one of two target images containing a prespecified stimulus (e.g., animal vs. nonanimal, ellipse vs. rectangle). Target pictures were preceded by prime pictures of the same or an opposite category, linked to either the same or an opposite pointing response. We found that pointing trajectories were initially controlled by the primes alone, but independently of information in the actual targets. Our data indicate that prime and target signals remained strictly sequential throughout all processing stages, meeting unprecedentedly stringent behavioral criteria for feedforward processing (rapid-chase criteria). Our findings suggest that visuomotor priming effects capture the output of the very first pass of information through the visuomotor system, before output is affected by recurrent information.

show abstract

Using the jackknife‐based scoring method for measuring LRP onset effects in factorial designs

Cited by 369 publications

References 24 publications

The cognitive mechanisms underlying deception: An event-related potential study

The cognitive mechanisms underlying deception: An event-related potential study

Social conformity is due to biased stimulus processing: electrophysiological and diffusion analyses

Processing of natural images is feedforward: A simple behavioral test

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About