Trials and intensity effects in single-trial ERP components and autonomic responses in a dishabituation paradigm with very long ISIs

MacDonald, Brett; Barry, Robert J.; Bonfield, Rebecca

doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.08.002

Cited by 14 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 82 publications

(200 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These effects matched the significant novelty effects in the SCR, long established as the “gold standard” index of the OR. These LPC/SCR outcomes match those from previous habituation studies that jointly assess these measures (e.g., MacDonald & Barry, ,; MacDonald et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Our first specific hypothesis was that we would find four components in the LPC range in this classic habituation paradigm: P3a, P3b, nP3, and SW. Our PCA over a temporal epoch from 90 to 470 ms (derived from the grand mean ERP morphology spanning from N1 to the classic SW) decomposed the ERP into a series of components identified (in temporal order) as N1–3, N1–1, PN, P2, P3a, P3b, nP3, +SW, and −SW. The early components up to P2 are broadly similar to previous components reported from habituation (e.g., MacDonald & Barry, ,: MacDonald et al, ) and Go/NoGo paradigms (e.g., Barry & De Blasio, ; Barry, De Blasio, & Cave, ; Barry, De Blasio, Fogarty, et al, ; Borchard, Barry, & De Blasio, ) but showed little systematic variation over trials and are not discussed further. The P3a, P3b, nP3, and +SW components mirror findings from Barry et al (), Barry et al (), MacDonald and Barry (, ), MacDonald et al (), and Rushby and Barry ().…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…The early components up to P2 are broadly similar to previous components reported from habituation (e.g., MacDonald & Barry, ,: MacDonald et al, ) and Go/NoGo paradigms (e.g., Barry & De Blasio, ; Barry, De Blasio, & Cave, ; Barry, De Blasio, Fogarty, et al, ; Borchard, Barry, & De Blasio, ) but showed little systematic variation over trials and are not discussed further. The P3a, P3b, nP3, and +SW components mirror findings from Barry et al (), Barry et al (), MacDonald and Barry (, ), MacDonald et al (), and Rushby and Barry (). Separation of the SW into different +SW and a late −SW was not expected from our previous work but is compatible with Loveless, Simpson, and Näätanen’s () hypothesis and other PCA studies (e.g., Rohrbaugh, Syndulko, & Lindsley, ,).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Subsequent single‐trial long‐ISI habituation studies have often confirmed the P3a, P3b, nP3, SW sequence (e.g., Barry, MacDonald, De Blasio, & Steiner, ; Barry, MacDonald, & Rushby, ; MacDonald & Barry, ,; MacDonald, Barry, & Bonfield, ; Rushby & Barry, ). Note that in some of these, we labeled the nP3 as “HabP3” to avoid contention (MacDonald & Barry, ,; MacDonald et al, ). However, a question of paradigm differences remains: is the LPC examined in these single‐trial ERPs to a single series of stimuli equivalent to the traditional oddball LPC in the averaged ERP obtained in paradigms with short ISIs?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Components in the P300:Don’t forget the Novelty P3!

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated stimulus‐response patterns of temporal principal components analysis (PCA)–derived event‐related potential (ERP) components in a classical auditory habituation paradigm with long interstimulus intervals. The skin conductance response (SCR) was included as the “gold standard” model of the Orienting Reflex. Thirty participants were presented with a single series of 10 identical 60 dB tones, followed by a change trial at a different frequency. Single‐trial, electrooculography‐corrected ERPs were submitted to temporal PCA. The main focus was on the components expected in the P300/Late Positive Complex (LPC), and their electromagnetic tomography–derived cortical sources. Nine components were identified between 90 and 470 ms poststimulus (in temporal order): three N1 subcomponents, P2, four LPC components, and a negative Slow Wave (SW). The expected order of P3a, P3b, Novelty P3 (nP3), and positive Slow Wave (+SW) in the LPC was confirmed. SCR demonstrated strong exponential decay and recovery. P3b and nP3 each showed exponential decrement over trials, but only nP3 showed recovery at the change trial. Novelty effects failed to reach significance for the other LPC components, and were not apparent in non‐LPC components. Frontal lobe activity in Brodmann areas 6, 8, and 9 was common to P3a, P3b, nP3, and +SW, consistent with the functional integration of these components in the LPC. Individual components had specific sources, although some sources overlapped between components or were reactivated later in the LPC. These data provide a fresh perspective on the components of the LPC and their cortical sources, and offer a processing model for the P300 in a habituation task, potentially generalizable to other paradigms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Components in the P300:Don’t forget the Novelty P3!

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This blockepochs approach allows studying the relationships which can exist between P2, P3a and P3b ERP components in a demanding workload environment. Previous investigations using oddball paradigms (Borchard et al, 2015;Lasaponara et al, 2015;MacDonald et al, 2015) reported that P2 and P3 components may be observed and measured on the vertex. The components of interest were also distinguished over the vertex in our study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of mental workload: A new electrophysiological method based on intra-block averaging of ERP amplitudes

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study contributes to the current debate about electrophysiological measurements of mental workload. Specifically, the allocation of attentional resources during different complexity levels of tasks and its changes over time are of great interest. Therefore, we investigated mental workload using tasks varying in difficulty during an auditory oddball target paradigm. For data analysis, we applied a novel method to compute event-related potentials (ERPs) by intra-block epoch averaging of P2, P3a and P3b amplitude components for the infrequent target stimuli. We obtained eight consecutive blocks of 5 epochs each, which allowed us to develop an electrophysiological parameter to measure mental workload. In both the easy and the more constraining tasks, the amplitude of P2 decreased beginning with the second block of the sequence. In contrast, the amplitudes of P3a and P3b components linearly decreased following the repetition of the target in the more constraining task, but not in the easy task. Statistical analysis revealed intra-block differences on amplitudes of ERPs of interest between the easy and the more constraining tasks, confirming this method as a measure to assess mental workload. Since a subject is his own control, the present method represents an electrophysiological parameter for individual measurement of mental workload and may therefore be applicable in clinical routine.

show abstract

Novelty detection and orienting: effects on skin conductance and heart rate

Zimmer

Richter

2022

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a repetition-change paradigm it was explored whether the skin conductance response (SCR) and the heart rate (HR) response similarly reflect involuntary and voluntary orienting. Seven orienting stimuli, consisting of six contextually novel stimuli and one novel change, were presented to 144 participants. In order to evoke voluntary orienting, the signal value of the contextually novel stimuli was manipulated by task instruction. Results suggest that the SCR is a manifestation of the involuntary orienting response (iOR). The HR, however, showed a non-uniform pattern of response and turned out to be susceptible to voluntary orienting. While it responded to the last orienting stimulus, the novel change, with a clear-cut deceleration, the response to the first orienting stimulus had a polyphase structure and was sensitive to repetition and signal value. The HR response is, thus, of limited value as an indicator of the iOR because of its striking susceptibility to voluntary orienting.

show abstract

Trials and intensity effects in single-trial ERP components and autonomic responses in a dishabituation paradigm with very long ISIs

Cited by 14 publications

References 82 publications

Components in the P300:Don’t forget the Novelty P3!

Components in the P300:Don’t forget the Novelty P3!

Assessment of mental workload: A new electrophysiological method based on intra-block averaging of ERP amplitudes

Novelty detection and orienting: effects on skin conductance and heart rate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About