Habituation of P300 to target stimuli

Lammers, William J.; Badia, Pietro

doi:10.1016/0031-9384(89)90079-6

Cited by 74 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An alternative explanation is that salivation and motivated responding are controlled by separate pathways, and the physiological responses for both behaviors habituate. This may be more likely, since habituation is a basic property of the nervous system (Groves & Thompson, 1970), and habituation has been observed across a wide variety of response systems (Baker & Tiffany, 1985;Kimmel & Bevill, 1985;Lammers & Badia, 1989;Swithers, 1995;Wagner, 1979).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habituation and recovery of salivation and motivated responding for food in children

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Salivary responses habituate to repeated presentations of food cues, and these responses recover when new food stimuli are presented. Research suggests that within-session changes in motivated responding for food may also habituate, and motivated responding may, therefore, recover when new foods are presented. The purpose of this study was to evaluate similarities in the pattern of salivation and motivated responding for a cheeseburger stimulus in children, followed by either a novel stimulus (French fries) or another cheeseburger trial. The order of the task (salivation or motivation) was counterbalanced over days. Salivation and motivated responding for cheeseburger were reliably reduced over seven trials, and responses recovered after presentation of French fries on trial 8. Random regression models showed a significant relationship between the rate of change in motivated responding and salivation. These results provide additional support for similarities in processes that regulate salivation and motivated responding for food and strengthen support for the hypothesis that changes in motivated responding can be understood by habituation theory.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habituation and recovery of salivation and motivated responding for food in children

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The relationships of the factors governing prestimulus negative shifts to other cognitive processes that affect the amplitude and/or latency of stimulus evoked brain potentials, including for example, attention (Hillyard et al, 1973;Picton and Hillyard, 1974), habituation (Lammers and Badia, 1989), and dishabituation (Megela and Teyler, 1979) are not known.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sequential changes of auditory processing during target detection: motor responding versus mental counting

Starr

Aguinaldo

Roe

et al. 1997

Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Electromyog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Carrillo-de-la-Pena and Garcia-Larrea 1999; Ivey and Schmidt, 1993;Kinoshita et al, 1996;Lammers and Badia, 1989;Pan et al, 2000;Polich and McIsaac, 1994;Ravden and Polich, 1998;Romero and Polich, 1996), but, however, yielded heterogenous results. If target-P3 amplitude reductions were observed, these could be attributed to several experimental variables, among them the number of target stimuli, length of interblock intervals, and length of intertarget intervals (Carrillo-de-la-Pena and Garcia-Larrea, 1999; Ravden and Polich, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From these effects, it has been concluded that reduction of the target-P3 at least partly reflects a change in the amount of attentional resources invested in a task (e.g. Polich and McIsaac, 1994;Lammers and Badia, 1989). Accordingly, many authors interpret the target-P3 as reflecting the degree of cognitive involvement and top-down driven aspects of attention in the task.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Debener

Kranczioch

Herrmann

et al. 2002

International Journal of Psychophysiology

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 alteration between both sessions occurred. The target-P3 showed the opposite pattern, i.e. a reduced amplitude from the first to the second session, but no systematic change within each session. These findings suggest that novelty-P3 amplitude changes reflect habituation, whereas target-P3 session effects may indicate the adjusted amount of processing resources invested into the task. In general, the results support the interpretation of the novelty-P3 as indicating automatic, bottom-up related aspects of attention, whereas the target-P3, in the present paradigm, seems to reflect voluntary, top-down related aspects of attention. ᮊ

show abstract

Habituation of P300 to target stimuli

Cited by 74 publications

References 18 publications

Habituation and recovery of salivation and motivated responding for food in children

Habituation and recovery of salivation and motivated responding for food in children

Sequential changes of auditory processing during target detection: motor responding versus mental counting

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About