Comparing P300 modulations: Target-to-target interval versus infrequent nontarget-to-nontarget interval in a three-stimulus task

Psychophysiology

Volumn 50, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 187-194

  Steiner, Genevieve Z ^a   Brennan, Michelle L ^a   Gonsalvez, Craig J ^a   Barry, Robert J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

Author keywords

Event related potentials (ERPs); Interstimulus interval (ISI); Nontarget to nontarget interval (NNI); P300; Sequence effects; Target to target interval (TTI)

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872164309     PISSN: 00485772     EISSN: 14698986     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01491.x     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2005). An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: Adaptive gain and optimal performance. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 28, 403-450. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135709
2. Croft, R. J., Gonsalvez, C. J., Gabriel, C., & Barry, R. J. (2003). Target-to-target interval versus probability effects on P300 in one- and two-tone tasks. Psychophysiology, 40, 322-328. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.00036
3. Debener, S., Makeig, S., Delorme, A., & Engel, A. K. (2004). What is novel in the novelty oddball paradigm? Functional significance of the novelty P3 event-related potential as revealed by independent component analysis. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 309-321. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.006
4. Donchin, E. (1981). Surprise! ... Surprise? Psychophysiology, 18, 493-513. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1981.tb01815.x
5. Donchin, E., & Coles, M. G. H. (1988). Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behavioural Brain Sciences, 11, 357-374. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00058027
6. Duncan-Johnson, C. C., & Donchin, E. (1977). On quantifying surprise: The variation of event-related potentials with subjective probability. Psychophysiology, 14, 456-467. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1977.tb01312.x
7. Duncan-Johnson, C. C., & Donchin, E. (1982). The P300 component of the event-related brain potential as an index of information processing. Biological Psychology, 14, 1-52. doi: 10.1016/0301-0511(82)90016-3
8. Fitzgerald, P. G., & Picton, T. W. (1981). Temporal and sequential probability in evoked potential studies. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 35, 188-200. doi: 10.1037/h0081154
9. Gehring, W. J., Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Probability effects on stimulus evaluation and response processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 198-216. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.18.1.198
10. Goldstein, A., Spencer, K. M., & Donchin, E. (2002). The influence of stimulus deviance and novelty on the P300 and novelty P3. Psychophysiology, 39, 781-790. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.3960781
11. Gonsalvez, C. J., Barry, R. J., Rushby, J. A., & Polich, J. (2007). Target-to-target interval, intensity, and P300 from an auditory single-stimulus task. Psychophysiology, 44, 245-250. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00495.x
12. Gonsalvez, C. J., Gordon, E., Anderson, J., Pettigrew, G., Barry, R. J., Rennie, C., & Meares, R. (1995). Number of preceding nontargets differentially affect responses to targets in normal volunteers and patients with schizophrenia: A study of event-related potentials. Psychiatry Research, 1, 69-75. doi: 10.1016/0165-1781(95)02315-N
13. Gonsalvez, C. J., Gordon, E., Grayson, S., Barry, R. J., Lazzaro, I., & Bahramali, H. (1999). Is the target-to-target interval a critical determinant of P3 amplitude? Psychophysiology, 36, 643-654. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.3650643
14. Gonsalvez, C. J., & Polich, J. (2002). P300 amplitude is determined by target-to-target interval. Psychophysiology, 39, 388-396. doi: 10.1017/S0048577201393137
15. Jasper, H. A. (1958). The ten-twenty system of the International Federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 10, 371-375.
16. Jentzsch, I., & Sommer, W. (2001). Sequence-sensitive subcomponents of P300: Topographic analyses and dipole source localization. Psychophysiology, 38, 607-621. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.3840607
17. Johnson, R., Jr. (1986). A triarchic model of P300 amplitude. Psychophysiology, 23, 367-384. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1986.tb00649.x
18. Johnson, R., Jr., & Donchin, E. (1980). P300 and stimulus categorization: Two plus one is not so different from one plus one. Psychophysiology, 17, 167-178. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1980.tb00131.x
19. Magliero, A., Bashore, T. R., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1984). On the dependence of P300 latency on stimulus evaluation processes. Psychophysiology, 21, 171-186. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1984.tb00201.x
20. Nieuwenhuis, S., Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. (2005). Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 510-532. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.510
21. O'Brien, R. G., & Kaiser, M. K. (1985). MANOVA method for analysing repeated measures designs: An extensive primer. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 316-333. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.97.2.316
22. Picton, T. W. (1992). The P300 wave of the human event-related potential. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 9, 456-479. doi: 10.1097/00004691-199210000-00002
23. Polich, J. (1990a). P300, probability, and interstimulus interval. Psychophysiology, 27, 396-403. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1990.tb02333.x
24. Polich, J. (1990b). Probability and inter-stimulus interval effects on the P300 from auditory stimuli. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 10, 163-170. doi: 10.1016/0167-8760(90)90030-H
25. Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118, 2128-2148. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019
26. Polich, J., Brock, T., & Geisler, M. W. (1991). P300 from auditory and somatosensory stimuli: Probability and inter stimulus interval. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 11, 219-223. doi: 10.1016/0167-8760(91)90015-P
27. Polich, J., Ellerson, P. C., & Cohen, J. (1996). P300, stimulus intensity, modality, and probability. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 23, 55-62. doi: 10.1016/0167-8760(96)00028-1
28. Pritchard, W. S. (1981). Psychophysiology of P300. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 506-540. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.89.3.506
29. Semlitsch, H. V., Anderer, P., Schuster, P., & Presslich, O. (1986). A solution for reliable and valid reduction of ocular artifacts, applied to the P300 ERP. Psychophysiology, 23, 695-703. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1986.tb00696.x
30. Smith, J. L., Smith, E. A., Provost, A. L., & Heathcote, A. (2010). Sequence effects support the conflict theory of N2 and P3 in the Go/NoGo task. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 75, 217-226. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.11.002
31. Squires, K. C., Petuchowski, S., Wickens, C., & Donchin, E. (1977). The effects of stimulus sequence on ERPs: A comparison of visual and auditory sequences. Perception and Psychophysics, 22, 31-40.
32. Squires, K. C., Wickens, C., Squires, N. K., & Donchin, E. (1976). The effects of stimulus sequence on the waveform of the cortical event related potential. Science, 193, 1142-1146. doi: 10.1126/science.959831
33. Stevens, M. C., Calhoun, V. D., & Kiehl, K. A. (2005). fMRI in an oddball task: Effects of target-to-target interval. Psychophysiology, 42, 636-642. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00368.x
34. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
35. Verleger, R. (1988). Event-related potentials and cognition: A critique of the context-updating hypothesis and an alternative interpretation of P3. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 343-356. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00058015
36. Verleger, R. (1997). On the utility of P3 latency as an index of mental chronometry. Psychophysiology, 34, 131-156. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1997.tb02125.x
37. Verleger, R., Jaśkowski, P., & Wascher, E. (2005). Evidence for an integrative role of P3b in linking reaction to perception. Journal of Psychophysiology, 19, 165-181. doi: 10.1027/0269-8803.19.3.165