P300 and Uncertainty Reduction in a Concept‐Identification Task

Abstract

The relationship between the amplitude of P300, the mean amplitude of the Slow Wave, and uncertainty reduction after (dis)confirmation of hypotheses was studied in a Concept-Identification task. The subjects had to categorize stimuli according to a conceptual mIe (joint denial or exclusion) and to rate the confidence that their classification was correct. Three types of feedback were distinguished: confirming (subject's categorization was correct), disconfirming (subject's categorization was incorrect), and non-informative feedback. The EEG was averaged separately according to the three types of feedback and the two confidence ratings (low, high).The data showed the predicted interaction between type of feedback and confidence level. A larger P300 amplitude tumed up after confirming feedback when the subject was less confident, than when he was more confident. The reverse was found after disconfirming feedback. The P300 amplitude after non-informative feedback was not influenced by confidence. The mean amplitude of the Slow Wave showed approximately the same interaction pattem.The results were interpreted in terms of changes in the probability of hypotheses which subjects use to categorize stimuli in a Concept-Identification task.

Increasing Working Memory Load Reduces Processing of Cross-Modal Task-Irrelevant Stimuli Even after Controlling for Task Difficulty and Executive Capacity

“…In contrast to the SW, the amplitude of the P3b diminished under the high load condition, which is consistent with many other reports ( Mecklinger et al, 1992 ; Ruchkin et al, 1992 ; Gevins et al, 1996 ). Under high load, resources that had been allocated to decision-making/updating may be utilized for other cognitive operations like sustaining attention, leading to greater uncertainty about target identity and a smaller P3b amplitude ( DeSwart et al, 1981 ; Johnson, 1986 ; McEvoy et al, 1998 ; Watter et al, 2001 ; Daffner et al, 2011 ). Another potential contribution to load-related reduction of the size of P3b might be increased trial-to-trial variability in the peak latency of the P3b due to greater task difficulty.…”

P300 as the resolution of negative cortical DC shifts

“…There is a considerable similarity between the antecedent conditions of P300 and the conditions that evoke the OR. For instance, P300 is larger with stimuli that have low probability or high complexity, with novel or unfamiliar stimuli, and with feedback stimuli that disconfirm strong hypotheses (De Swart et al 1981;Kok & Looren de Jong 1980a; see also Pritchard 1981;Tueting 1978; for reviews). The stimulus variables that evoke ORs have also been referred to as "collative" or "attention-getting" variables, and mainly control involuntary attention (Kahneman 1973).…”

“…Information processing triggered by the occurrence of an event is affected by the expectancy associated with that event. An aspect of the processing invoked by unexpected events is reflected in P300 amplitude, (p. 484) We dwell on the Horst et al study because it receives detailed attention from Verleger, who begins by stating that "another line of evidence frequently quoted in support of the claim that P3 reflects surprise is that disconfirming feedback evoked larger P3s than confirming feedback (De Swart et al 1981;Horst et al 1980;Squires et al 1973). " This is a very partial and therefore quite misleading summary of all three studies.…”

“…Another line of evidence frequently quoted in support of the claim that P3 reflects surprise is that disconfirming feedback evoked larger P3s than confirming feedback (De Swart et al 1981;Horst et al 1980;K. Squires et al 1973), in particular when subjects were confident that they were right (Horst et al, De Swart et al; but K. Squires et al found no difference between confidence categories).…”

Brain oscillatory activity associated with task switching and feedback processing

“…Whereas the excellent temporal resolution of the ERPs is undisputed, the time domain analysis of the EEG has yielded very similar P3-like ERP responses to signals indicating task switching (Barceló et al, 2002;Nicholson et al, 2005;Rushworth et al, 2002;Stuss & Picton, 1978) and feedback signals (Chwilla & Brunia, 1991;De Swart, Kok, & Das-Smaal, 1981;Haschke, Haschke, Schwind, Dormann, & Dormann, 1985;Holroyd, Pakzad-Vaezi, & Krigolson, 2008;Johnson, 1986;Johnson & Donchin, 1978;Kotchoubey, 2002;Müller, Moller, Rodríguez-Fornells, & Münte, 2005). Importantly, ERP averaging is blind to activity that is not phase locked to the eliciting stimulus, which is particularly important for highfrequency responses (i.e., >20 Hz).…”