Signal and noise in P300 recordings to visual stimuli

Documenta Ophthalmologica

Volumn 117, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 73-83

  Heinrich, Sven P ^a   Bach, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Event related potentials; P300; Response size; Signal to noise ratio; Stimulus probability; Visual stimulation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PROBABILITY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VISUAL STIMULATION;

EID: 45049084155     PISSN: 00124486     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10633-007-9107-4     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Linden DEJ (2005) The P300: Where in the brain is it produced and what does it tell us? Neuroscientist 11:563-576
2. Polich J, Herbst KL (2000) P300 as a clinical assay: Rationale, evaluation, and findings. Int J Psychophysiol 38:3-19
3. Patel SH, Azzam PN (2005) Characterization of N200 and P300: Selected studies of the event-related potential. Int J Med Sci 2:147-154
4. Pratap-Chand R, Sinniah M, Salem FA (1988) Cognitive evoked potential (P300): A metric for cerebral concussion. Acta Neurol Scand 78:185-189
5. Rousseff RT, Tzvetanov P, Atanassova PA, Volkov I, Hristova I (2006) Correlation between cognitive P300 changes and the grade of closed head injury. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 46:275-277
6. Wang JT, Young GB, Connolly JF (2004) Prognostic value of evoked responses and event-related brain potentials in coma. Can J Neurol Sci 31:438-450
7. Comi G, Leocani L, Locatelli T, Medaglini S, Martinelli V (1999) Electrophysiological investigations in multiple sclerosis dementia. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl 50:480-485
8. Magnano I, Aiello I, Piras MR (2006) Cognitive impairment and neurophysiological correlates in MS. J Neurol Sci 245:117-122
9. Lorenz J, Kunze K, Bromm B (1998) Differentiation of conversive sensory loss and malingering by P300 in a modified oddball task. Neuroreport 9:187-191
10. Towle VL, Sutcliffe E, Sokol S (1985) Diagnosing functional visual deficits with the P300 component of the visual evoked potential. Arch Ophthalmol 103:47-50
11. Verleger R (1997) On the utility of P3 latency as an index of mental chronometry. Psychophysiology 34:131-156
12. Soltani M, Knight RT (2000) Neural origins of the P300. Crit Rev Neurobiol 14:199-224
13. Polich J (2003) Theoretical overview of P3a and P3b. In: Polich J (ed) Detection of change: Event-related potential and fMRI findings. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, pp 83-98
14. Polich J (2004) Neuropsychology of P3a and P3b: A theoretical overview. In: Moore NC, Arikan K (eds) Brainwaves Rnd mind: recent developments. Kjellberg, Wheaton, IL, pp 15-29
15. Katayama J, Polich J (1996) P300, probability, and the three-tone paradigm. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 100:555-562
16. Picton TW (1992) The P300 wave of the human event-related potential. J Clin Neurophysiol 9:456-479
17. Ji J, Porjesz B, Begleiter H, Chorlian D (1999) P300: The similarities and differences in the scalp distribution of visual and auditory modality. Brain Topogr 11:315-327
18. Johnson R Jr (1986) A triarchic model of P300 amplitude. Psychophysiology 23:367-384
19. Polich J, Margala C (1997) P300 and probability: Comparison of oddball and single-stimulus paradigms. Int J Psychophysiol 25:169-176
20. Duncan-Johnson CC, Donchin E (1977) On quantifying surprise: The variation of event-related potentials with subjective probability. Psychophysiology 14:456-467
21. Rosenfeld JP, Biroschak JR, Kleschen MJ, Smith KM (2005) Subjective and objective probability effects on P300 amplitude revisited. Psychophysiology 42:356-359
22. Gonsalvez CL, Polich J (2002) P300 amplitude is determined by target-to-target interval. Psychophysiology 39:388-396
23. Golob EJ, Starr A (2000) Effects of stimulus sequence on event-related potentials and reaction time during target detection in Alzheimer's disease. Clin Neurophysiol 111:1438-1449
24. Holm A, Ranta-aho PO, Sallinen M, Karjalainen PA, Muller K (2006) Relationship of P300 single-trial responses with reaction time and preceding stimulus sequence. Int J Psychophysiol 61:244-252
25. Potts GF, Patel SH, Azzam PN (2004) Impact of instructed relevance on the visual ERP. Int J Psychophysiol 52:197-209
26. Williams LM, Simms E, Clark CR, Paul RH, Rowe D, Gordon E (2005) The test-retest reliability of a standardized neurocognitive and neurophysiological test battery: "Neuromarker". Int J Neurosci 115:1605-1630
27. Ravden D, Polich J (1999) On P300 measurement stability: Habituation, intra-trial block variation, and ultradian rhythms. Biol Psychol 51:59-76
28. Ravden D, Polich J (1998) Habituation of P300 from visual stimuli. Int J Psychophysiol 30:359-365
29. Kinoshita S, Maeda H, Nakamura J, Kodama E, Morita K (1995) Reliability of the probability effect on event-related potentials during repeated testing. Kurume Med J 42:199-210
30. van Beijsterveldt CEM, van Baal GCM (2002) Twin and family studies of the human electroencephalogram: A review and a meta-analysis. Biol Psychol 61:111-138
31. Ahlfors SP, Ilmoniemi RJ, Portin K (1993) The effect of stimulation rate on the signal-to-noise ratio of evoked responses. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 88:339-342
32. Stecker MM (2000) Generalized averaging and noise levels in evoked responses. Comput Biol Med 30:247-265
33. Farwell LA, Donchin E (1988) Talking off the top of your head: Toward a mental prosthesis utilizing event-related brain potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 70:510-523
34. American Clinical Neurophysiology Society (2006) Guideline 5: Guidelines for standard electrode position nomenclature. J Clin Neurophysiol 23:107-110
35. Murphy TI, Segalowitz SJ (2004) Eliminating the P300 rebound in short oddball paradigms. Int J Psychophysiol 53:233-238
36. Taylor JR (1997) An introduction to error analysis: The study of uncertainties in physical measurements, 2nd edn. University Science Books, Sausalito CA
37. Silverman MP, Strange W, Lipscombe TC (2004) The distribution of composite measurements: How to be certain of the uncertainties in what we measure. Am J Phys 72:1068-1081
38. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Statist 6:65-70