2002
DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8760(02)00072-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Auditory novelty oddball allows reliable distinction of top–down and bottom–up processes of attention

Abstract: An auditory novelty-oddball task, which is known to evoke a P3 event-related potential (ERP) in a target condition and a novelty-P3 ERP in response to task-irrelevant unique environmental sounds, was repeatedly applied to healthy participants (ns14) on two separate recording sessions, 7 days apart. Both target-P3 and novelty-P3 were internally consistent and test-retest reliable. Interestingly, novelty-P3 amplitude declined from the first to the second half of each recording session, whereas no systematic alte… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
73
2

Year Published

2003
2003
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 115 publications
(83 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
8
73
2
Order By: Relevance
“…2 Such a P3 reduction effect as a function of repetition has been evidenced in previous studies (Debener et al, 2002;Ravden and Polich, 1998).…”
Section: 2supporting
confidence: 58%
“…2 Such a P3 reduction effect as a function of repetition has been evidenced in previous studies (Debener et al, 2002;Ravden and Polich, 1998).…”
Section: 2supporting
confidence: 58%
“…As can be seen in the left column, all three conditions evoked a small P1 (peak latency 48 ms) followed by a prominent N1 ERP (106 ms), which was slightly larger for target than for novel and frequent stimuli. Novel stimuli evoked a novelty-P3 component, whereas target stimuli evoked a P3b (for a detailed discussion of the ERP results see [23]). …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Attentional resources used to maintain memory items in parietal regions may result from response organization produced by bottom-up processing (Conroy and Polich, 2007;Nieuwenhuis et al, 2005;Verleger et al, 2005). In sum, stimulus characteristics and task demands are determinants of distracter evaluation and contribute to the different topographic and timing outcomes observed at the scalp (Berti et al, 2004;Debener et al, 2002;Gaeta et al, 2003;Polich and Comerchero, 2003).…”
Section: Neural Origins Of P3a and P3bmentioning
confidence: 99%