Effects on P3 of spreading targets and response prompts apart

Verleger, Rolf; Siller, Bastian; Ouyang, Guang; Śmigasiewicz, Kamila

doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2017.03.011

Cited by 26 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, we found that the S1-R-evoked P3 was neither correlated with the S1-I-evoked CNV (r = 0.07, p = 0.72) nor the S1-R-evoked CNV (r = 0.18, p = 0.36), which also suggest that the S1-R-evoked positivity was not a confound of the S1-evoked negativity. This conclusion is in line with Verleger et al 's 20 evidence against a major confound of P3 by CNV overlap. Although there is an overlapping time-window, it seems that the 1 sec long target -go signal interval was long enough to mostly separate the peak activities of the two components.…”

Section: Contingent Negative Variation (Cnv)supporting

confidence: 90%

“…While in some tasks the RT-P3 relationship was linked to stimulus-related processing, in others, like the Simon task and the flanker task, this relationship reflected predominantly response selection processes. Moreover, when experimental procedures are specifically design to examine the relationship between P3 and S-R coupling, the results rather systematically contradict the assumption of the stimulus evaluation account that P3 is not related to response processing 14,15,20,44 . Thus, the assumption seems unsustainable (cf.…”

Section: Contingent Negative Variation (Cnv)mentioning

confidence: 83%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The response relevance of visual stimuli modulates the P3 component and the underlying sensorimotor network

Asanowicz

Gociewicz

Koculak

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The functional meaning and neural basis of the P3b component of ERPs are still under debate. One of the main issues is whether P3b reflects only stimulus-related processes (stimulus evaluation hypothesis) or response-related processes as well (stimulus-response or S-R link activation hypothesis). Here, we conducted an EEG experiment examining whether P3b may indeed reflect an S-R link activation, followed by an fMRI experiment in which we explored the brain areas and functional connectivity possibly constituting the neural basis of these sensorimotor links. In both experiments, two successive visual stimuli, S1 and S2, were presented with a 1 sec interval, and responses were defined either by S1 or S2, while participants responded only after S2 onset. The obtained EEG results suggest that P3b may be interpreted in terms of the S-R link activation account, although further studies are needed to disentangle P3-related activity from overlapping anticipatory activity. The obtained fMRI results showed that processing of the relevant S1 involved activation of a distributed postero-anterior sensorimotor network, and increased strength of functional connectivity within this network. This network may underlie activation of the S-R links, thus possibly also the P3b component, forming a bridging step between sensory encoding and response execution. In the present study, we conducted two experiments: an EEG experiment aimed at examining the issue of whether P3b may reflect processes related to activation of stimulus-response (S-R) links or "event files", followed by an fMRI experiment aimed at exploring what may constitute the neural basis of these sensorimotor links. EEG Experiment Introduction. Over four decades have passed since Squires, Squires, and Hillyard 1 described the P3b component (that we will further refer to as P3)-a major centro-parietal part of the P300 complex in the human event-related EEG potential (ERP) with a maximal positive deflection at parietal midline (usually the Pz site) at about 300-700 ms after stimulus onset. Years of extensive studies have shown that P3 emerges whenever a task-related or behaviorally-relevant stimulus is perceived, regardless of stimulus and response modalities, and changes in P3 amplitude and latency are related to a wide range of higher-level cognitive processes 2-4. Yet, the functional meaning of P3 as well as its neural underpinnings are still under debate. Answers to the question of "what is the underlying process reflected by P3?" usually fall into one of two general views. The first view is that P3 reflects stimulus processing only, and is neither related to nor affected by processes of response selection and preparation 5,6. Seminal for this approach, the stimulus evaluation account maintains that P3 is a signature of comprehensive evaluation of perceived events. This evaluation entails processes of allocation of perceptual and/or attentional resources to event encoding and categorization 7-9 , and it is often assumed here that P3 amplitude reflects the amount of these...

show abstract

Section: Contingent Negative Variation (Cnv)supporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Contingent Negative Variation (Cnv)mentioning

confidence: 83%

The response relevance of visual stimuli modulates the P3 component and the underlying sensorimotor network

Asanowicz

Gociewicz

Koculak

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This interaction is due to nonsignificant differences in C‐cluster amplitudes between congruent and incongruent Go trials, but increased C‐cluster amplitudes in incongruent, compared to congruent NoGo trials. Besides reflecting “response selection codes”‐related processes mediating between stimulus evaluation and responding (Bluschke et al, ; Mückschel et al, ; Ouyang et al, ; Verleger et al, ; Wolff et al, ), the C‐cluster has also been assumed to reflect a “braking function” for motor processes (Mückschel et al, ). The decreased C‐cluster amplitude in congruent NoGo trials compared to incongruent NoGo trials likely reflects an insufficient braking of motor responses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The dual-process account stresses the importance of stimulus (S)-response (R) translation processes as a major source driving effects in "Simon-like" paradigms (Hommel, 2011; Keye et al, 2013). Exactly such S-R translations processes have been suggested to be reflected by the C-cluster (Bluschke et al, 2017;M€ uckschel et al, 2017a;Ouyang et al, 2017;Verleger et al, 2014Verleger et al, , 2017Wolff et al, 2017). Also horse race models stress the importance of S-R translation processes (Band, Ridderinkhof, & van der Molen, 2003b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Combined with source localization methods, it is then possible to examine the associated functional neuroanatomical network (Mückschel et al, ; Wolff, Mückschel, & Beste, ). The aforementioned stimulus (S)–response (R) translation processes have been suggested to be reflected by the C‐cluster (Bluschke, Chmielewski, Mückschel, Roessner, & Beste, ; Mückschel et al, ; Ouyang et al, ; Verleger, Metzner, Ouyang, Śmigasiewicz, & Zhou, ; Verleger, Siller, Ouyang, & Śmigasiewicz, ; Wolff et al, ), which has also been shown to be modulated during the inhibition of automated responses (Mückschel et al, ) and is assumed to mostly reflect processes that are also assumed to be reflected by the (NoGo)‐P3 (Mückschel et al, ; Verleger et al, ; Wolff et al, ). During inhibitory control the C‐cluster probably reflects a “braking function,” or a mechanism that is important to inhibit automated response tendencies (Mückschel et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Response selection codes in neurophysiological data predict conjoint effects of controlled and automatic processes during response inhibition

Chmielewski

Mückschel

Beste

2018

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The inhibition of prepotent responses is a requirement for goal-directed behavior and several factors determine corresponding successful response inhibition processes. One factor relates to the degree of automaticity of pre-potent response tendencies and another factor relates to the degree of cognitive control that is exerted during response inhibition. However, both factors can conjointly modulate inhibitory control. Cognitive theoretical concepts suggest that codings of stimulus-response translations may underlie such conjoint effects. Yet, it is unclear in how far such specific codes, as assumed in cognitive psychological concepts, are evident in neurophysiological processes and whether there are specific functional neuroanatomical structures associated with the processing of such codes. Applying a temporal decomposition method of EEG data in combination with source localization methods we show that there are different, intermingled codes (i.e., "stimulus codes" and "response selection codes") at the neurophysiological level during conjoint effects of "automatic" and "controlled" processes in response inhibition. Importantly, only "response selection codes" predict behavioral performance, and are subject to conjoint modulations by "automatic" and "controlled" processes. These modulations are associated with inferior and superior parietal areas (BA40/BA7), possibly reflecting an updating of internal representations when information is complex and probably difficult to categorize, but essential for behavioral control. Codes proposed by cognitive, psychological concepts seem to have a neurophysiological analogue that fits into current views on functions of inferior and superior parietal regions.

show abstract

Connecting EEG signal decomposition and response selection processes using the theory of event coding framework

Takács

Zink

Wolff

et al. 2020

Human Brain Mapping

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the integration of perception and action are an important topic in cognitive neuroscience. Yet, connections between neurophysiology and cognitive theoretical frameworks have rarely been established. The theory of event coding (TEC) details how perceptions and actions are associated (bound) in a common representational domain (the “event file”), but the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying these processes are hardly understood. We used complementary neurophysiological methods to examine the neurophysiology of event file processing (i.e., event‐related potentials [ERPs], temporal EEG signal decomposition, EEG source localization, time‐frequency decomposition, EEG network analysis). We show that the P3 ERP component and activity modulations in inferior parietal regions (BA40) reflect event file binding processes. The relevance of this parietal region is corroborated by source localization of temporally decomposed EEG data. We also show that temporal EEG signal decomposition reveals a pattern of results suggesting that event file processes can be dissociated from pure stimulus and response‐related processes in the EEG signal. Importantly, it is also documented that event file binding processes are reflected by modulations in the network architecture of theta frequency band activity. That is, when stimulus–response bindings in event files hamper response selection this was associated with a less efficient theta network organization. A more efficient organization was evident when stimulus–response binding in event files facilitated response selection. Small‐world network measures seem to reflect event file processing. The results show how cognitive‐theoretical assumptions of TEC can directly be mapped to the neurophysiology of response selection.

show abstract

Effects on P3 of spreading targets and response prompts apart

Cited by 26 publications

References 27 publications

The response relevance of visual stimuli modulates the P3 component and the underlying sensorimotor network

The response relevance of visual stimuli modulates the P3 component and the underlying sensorimotor network

Response selection codes in neurophysiological data predict conjoint effects of controlled and automatic processes during response inhibition

Connecting EEG signal decomposition and response selection processes using the theory of event coding framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About