The present review focuses on the utility of the amplitude of P3 of as a measure of processing capacity and mental workload. The paper starts with a brief outline of the conceptual framework underlying the relationship between P3 amplitude and task demands, and the cognitive task manipulations that determine demands on capacity. P3 amplitude results are then discussed on the basis of an extensive review of the relevant literature. It is concluded that although it has often been assumed that P3 amplitude depends on the capacity for processing task relevant stimuli, the utility of P3 amplitude as a sensitive and diagnostic measure of processing capacity remains limited. The major factor that prompts this conclusion is that the two principal task variables that have been used to manipulate capacity allocation, namely task difficulty and task emphasis, have opposite effects on the amplitude of P3. I suggest that this is because, in many tasks, an increase in difficulty transforms the structure or actual content of the flow of information in the processing systems, thereby interfering with the very processes that underlie P3 generation. Finally, in an attempt to theoretically integrate the results of the reviewed studies, it is proposed that P3 amplitude reflects activation of elements in a event-categorization network that is controlled by the joint operation of attention and working memory.

No abstract

The error negativity (Ne/ERN) and error positivity (Pe) are two components of the event-related brain potential (ERP) that are associated with action monitoring and error detection. To investigate the relation between error processing and conscious self-monitoring of behavior, the present experiment examined whether an Ne and Pe are observed after response errors of which participants are unaware. Ne and Pe measures, behavioral accuracy, and trial-to-trial subjective accuracy judgments were obtained from participants performing an antisaccade task, which elicits many unperceived, incorrect reflex-like saccades. Consistent with previous research, subjectively unperceived saccade errors were almost always immediately corrected, and were associated with faster correction times and smaller saccade sizes than perceived errors. Importantly, irrespective of whether the participant was aware of the error or not, erroneous saccades were followed by a sizable Ne. In contrast, the Pe was much more pronounced for perceived than for unperceived errors. Unperceived errors were characterized by the absence of posterror slowing. These and other results are consistent with the view that the Ne and Pe reflect the activity of two separate error monitoring processes, of which only the later process, reflected by the Pe, is associated with conscious error recognition and remedial action.

The primary aim of this study was to examine how response inhibition is reflected in components of the event-related potential (ERP), using the stop-signal paradigm as a tool to manipulate response inhibition processes. Stop signals elicited a sequence of N2/P3 components that partly overlapped with ERP components elicited by the reaction stimulus. N2/P3 components were more pronounced on stop-signal trials than on no-stop-signal trials. At Cz, the stop-signal P3 peaked earlier on successful than on unsuccessful stop trials. This finding extends the horse race model by demonstrating that the internal response to the stop signal (as reflected in stop-signal P3) is not constant, but terminates at different moments in time on successful and unsuccessful stop trials. In addition, topographical distributions and dipole analysis of high density EEG recordings indicated that different cortical generators were involved in P3s elicited on successful and unsuccessful stop-signal trials. The latter results suggest that P3 on successful stop-signal trials not only reflects stop-signal processing per se, but also efficiency of inhibitory control.

The error negativity (Ne/ERN) and error positivity (Pe) are two components of the event-related brain potential (ERP) that are associated with action monitoring and error detection. To investigate the relation between error processing and conscious self-monitoring of behavior, the present experiment examined whether an Ne and Pe are observed after response errors of which participants are unaware. Ne and Pe measures, behavioral accuracy, and trial-to-trial subjective accuracy judgments were obtained from participants performing an antisaccade task, which elicits many unperceived, incorrect reflex-like saccades. Consistent with previous research, subjectively unperceived saccade errors were almost always immediately corrected, and were associated with faster correction times and smaller saccade sizes than perceived errors. Importantly, irrespective of whether the participant was aware of the error or not, erroneous saccades were followed by a sizable Ne. In contrast, the Pe was much more pronounced for perceived than for unperceived errors. Unperceived errors were characterized by the absence of posterror slowing. These and other results are consistent with the view that the Ne and Pe reflect the activity of two separate error monitoring processes, of which only the later process, reflected by the Pe, is associated with conscious error recognition and remedial action.