On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity

Abstract

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.

Brain potentials predict substance abuse treatment completion in a prison sample

“…The lack of significant differences in ERP on the Go/NoGo task between SUD treatment completion groups may suggest that the Go/NoGo task is sufficiently complex to require participants in both groups to devote attentional resources during participation. Task demands have been shown to alter P300 responses related to context‐updating theory (Polich 2007); specifically, the more demanding the cognitive task, the smaller the P300 amplitude (Polich 1987; Kok 2001). The implication of these findings is that the participants who discontinued treatment early may have missed the sometimes subtleties that exist in therapy, the relevance to their own lives, and the benefits of treatment.…”

Generalized lapse of responding in trait impulsivity indicated by ERPs: The role of energetic factors in inhibitory control

“…More specifically, a larger P3 amplitude is assumed to reflect the employment of increased attentional resources (Kok, 2001). However, as it was shown, P3 would also indicate the amount of resources available for stimulus processing, therefore an amplitude reduction and latency increase suggested that resources were needed elsewhere (Beauducel et al, 2006).…”

Event-rate effects in the flanker task: ERPs and task performance in children with and without AD/HD

“…Tasks that are highly demanding require a great amount of energy to perform successfully, in which case the individual is not likely to be in the appropriate energetic state. The individual must then increase effort to mobilise energetic resources in order to equilibrate their energetic state with the energetic requirements of the task (Kok, 2001;Robert and Hockey, 1997). According to the CEM, in situations of sub-optimal energetic state, individuals with AD/HD cannot successfully adjust their energetic state to the level required by the task.…”

“…A parietally maximal P3 component has been identified in a variety of paradigms whose latency has been associated with the time taken to evaluate a stimulus (Polich and Kok, 1995) and amplitude related to the amount of information transferred to working memory (Kok, 2001;Polich and Kok, 1995;Wiersema et al, 2006a). In the flanker task this component is maximal centro-parietally, and is enhanced and delayed to incongruent stimuli compared to other stimulus types in both adults (Folstein and Van Petten, 2008;Ridderinkhof and van der Molen, 1995) and children Rueda et al, 2004).…”