Advertisement

Brain Topography

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 141–152 | Cite as

P3a from Visual Stimuli: Typicality, Task, and Topography

  • John Polich
  • Marco D. Comerchero
Article

Abstract

A visual three-stimulus (target, nontarget, standard) paradigm was employed in which subjects responded only to the target. Nontarget stimulus properties were varied systematically to evaluate how stimulus typicality (non-novel vs. novel) across task discrimination (easy vs. difficult) conditions affects P3a scalp topography. Nontarget stimuli consisted of letters, small squares, large squares, and novel patterns; discrimination difficulty between the target and standard was varied across conditions. When the discrimination was easy, P300 amplitude was larger for the target than the nontarget with parietal maximums for both. In contrast, when the discrimination was difficult, nontarget amplitude (P3a) was larger and earlier than the target P300 over the frontal/central electrode sites, whereas target amplitude (P3b) was larger parietally and occurred later. P3a was largest when elicited by either the large square or novel pattern stimuli. The findings suggest that stimulus context as defined by the target/standard discrimination difficulty rather than stimulus novelty determines P3a generation.

Event-related potential (ERP) Novelty P3a P3b Typical stimuli Task difficulty Scalp topography 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alho, K., Escera, C. and Schröger, E. Event-related brain potential indices of involuntary attention to auditory stimulus changes. In: J. Polich (Ed.), Detection of Change: Event-Related Potential and fMRI Findings. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, 2003: 23–40.Google Scholar
  2. Barcelo, F., Suwazono, S. and Knight, R.T. Prefrontal modulation of visual processing in humans. Nature Neurosci., 2000, 3: 399–403.Google Scholar
  3. Comerchero, M.D. and Polich J. P3a, perceptual distinctiveness, and stimulus modality. Cog. Brain Res., 1998, 7: 41–48.Google Scholar
  4. Comerchero, M.D. and Polich J. P3a and P3b from typical auditory and visual stimuli.Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1999, 10: 24–30.Google Scholar
  5. Courchesne, E. Changes in P3 waves with event repetition: long-term effects on scalp distribution and amplitude. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1978, 45: 754–766.Google Scholar
  6. Courchesne, E., Courchesne, R.Y. and Hillyard, S.A. The effect of stimulus deviation on P3 waves to easily recognized stimuli. Neuropsychologia, 1978, 16: 189–199.Google Scholar
  7. Courchesne, E., Hillyard, S.A. and Galambos, R. Stimulus novelty, task relevance and the visual evoked potential in man. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1975, 39: 131–143.Google Scholar
  8. Courchesne, E., Kilman, B.A., Galambos, R. and Lincoln, A. Autism: processing of novel auditory information assessed by event-related brain potentials. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1984, 59: 238–248.Google Scholar
  9. Demiralp, T., Ademoglu, A., Comerchero, M. and Polich, J. Wavelet analysis of P3a and P3b. Brain Top., 2001, 13: 251–267.Google Scholar
  10. Eimer, M. Effects of attention and stimulus probability on ERPs in a go/nogo task. Biol. Psychol., 1993, 35: 123–138.Google Scholar
  11. Escera, C., Alho, K., Winkler, I. and Naatanen, R. Neural mechanisms of involuntary attention to acoustic novelty and change. J. Cog. Neurosci., 1998, 10: 590–604.Google Scholar
  12. Fabiani, M., and Friedman, D. Changes in brain activity patterns in aging: The novelty oddball. Psychophysiology, 1995, 32: 579–594.Google Scholar
  13. Fabiani, M., Friedman, D. and Cheng, J. Individual differences in P3 scalp distribution in older adults, and their relationship to frontal lobe function. Psychophysiology, 1998, 35: 698–708.Google Scholar
  14. Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J. and Hoormann, J. Effects of choice complexity on different subcomponents of the late positive complex of the event-related potential. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1994, 92: 148–160.Google Scholar
  15. Falkenstein, M., Koshlykova, N.A., Kiroj, V.N., Hoormann, J. and Hohnsbein, J. Late ERP components in visual and auditory go/nogo tasks. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1995, 96: 36–43.Google Scholar
  16. Ford, J.M., Sullivan, E.V., Marsh, L., White, P.M., Lim, K.O. and Pfefferbaum, A. The relationship between P300 amplitude and regional gray matter volumes depends upon the attentional system engaged. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1994, 90: 214–228.Google Scholar
  17. Friedman, D. and Simpson, G.V. ERP amplitude and scalp distribution to target and novel events: effects of temporal order in young, middle-aged and older adults. Cog. Brain Res., 1994: 49–63.Google Scholar
  18. Friedman, D., Kazmerski, V.A. and Cycowicz, Y.M. Effects of aging on the novelty P3 during attend and ignore oddball tasks. Psychophysiology, 1998, 35: 508–520.Google Scholar
  19. Friedman, D., Simpson, G. and Hamberger, M. Age-related changes in scalp topography to novel and target stimuli. Psychophysiology, 1993, 30: 383–396.Google Scholar
  20. Grillon, C., Courchesne, E., Ameli, R., Elmasian, R. and Braff, D. Effects of rare non-target stimuli on brain electrophysiological activity and performance. Int. J. Psychophysiol., 1990, 9: 257–267.Google Scholar
  21. Halgren, E., Baudena, P., Clarke, J., Heit, G., Liégeois, Chauvel, P. and Musolino, A. Intracerebral potentials to rare target and distractor auditory and visual stimuli. I. Superior temporal plane and parietal lobe. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1995a, 94: 191–220.Google Scholar
  22. Halgren, E., Baudena, P., Clarke, J., Heit, G., Marinkovic, K., Devaux, B., Vignal, J-P. and Biraben, A. Intracerebral potentials to rare target and distractor auditory and visual stimuli. II. Medial, lateral and posterior temporal lobe. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1995b, 94: 229–250.Google Scholar
  23. Halgren, E., Marinkovic, K. and Chauvel, P. Generators of the late cognitive potentials in auditory and visual oddball tasks. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1998, 106: 156–164.Google Scholar
  24. Hartikainen, K. and Knight, R.T. Lateral and orbital prefrontal cortex contributions to attention. In: J. Polich (Ed.), Detection of Change: Event-Related Potential and fMRI Findings. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, 2003: 99–116.Google Scholar
  25. Jeon, Y.W. and Polich, J. P3a from a passive visual paradigm. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2001, 112: 2202–2208.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, R. The amplitude of the P300 component of the event-related potentials: Review and synthesis. In: P. Ackles, J.R. Jennings, and M.G.H. Coles (Eds.), Advances in Psychophysiology:AResearch Annual, Vol. 3. JAI Press, Inc., Greenwich, CT, 1988: 69–137.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, R. On the neural generators of the P300 component of the event-related potential. Psychophysiology, 1993, 30: 90–97.Google Scholar
  28. Katayama, J. and Polich, J. P300 from one-, two-, and three-stimulus auditory paradigms. Int. J. Psychophysiol., 1996a, 23: 33–40.Google Scholar
  29. Katayama, J. and Polich, J. P300, probability, and the three-tone paradigm. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1996b, 100: 555–562.Google Scholar
  30. Katayama, J. and Polich, J. Stimulus context determines P3a and P3b. Psychophysiology, 1998, 35: 23–33.Google Scholar
  31. Katayama, J. and Polich, J. Auditory and visual P300 topography from a three-stimulus paradigm. Clin. Neurophysiol., 1999, 110: 463–468.Google Scholar
  32. Kirino, E., Belger, A., Goldman-Rakic, P. and McCarthy, G. Prefrontal activation evoked by infrequent target and novel stimuli in a visual target detection task: An event-related functional magnetic resonance study. J. Neurosci., 2000, 20: 6612–6618.Google Scholar
  33. Knight, R.T. Decreased response to novel stimuli after prefrontal lesions in man. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1984, 59: 9–20.Google Scholar
  34. Knight, R.T. Aging decreases auditory event-related potentials to unexpected stimuli in humans. Neurobiology of Aging, 1987, 8: 109–113.Google Scholar
  35. Knight, R.T. Neural mechanisms of event-related potentials from human lesion studies. In: J. Rohrbaugh, R. Parasuraman and R. Johnson (Eds.), Event-related Brain Potentials: Basic Issues and Applications. Oxford University Press, New York, 1990: 3–18.Google Scholar
  36. Knight, R.T. Contribution of human hippocampal region to novelty detection. Nature, 1996, 383: 256–259.Google Scholar
  37. Knight, R.T. Distributed cortical network for visual attention. J. Cog. Neurosci., 1997, 9: 75–91.Google Scholar
  38. Knight, R.T., Scabini, D., Woods, D. and Clayworth, C. Contributions of temporal-parietal junction to the human auditory P300. Brain Res., 1989, 502: 109–116.Google Scholar
  39. Kok, A. Event-related potential (ERP) reflections of mental resources: A review and synthesis. Biol. Psychol., 1997, 45: 19–56.Google Scholar
  40. McCarthy, G. and Wood, C.C. Scalp distributions of event-related potentials:Anambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1985, 62: 203–208.Google Scholar
  41. McCarthy, G., Luby, M., Gore, J. and Goldman-Rakic, P. Infrequent events transiently activate human prefrontal and parietal cortex as measured by functional MRI. J. Neurophysiol., 1997, 77: 1630–1634.Google Scholar
  42. Mecklinger, A., Maess, B., Opitz, B., Pfeifer, E., Cheyne, D. and Weinberg, H. A MEG analysis of the P300 in visual discrimination tasks. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1998, 108: 45–56.Google Scholar
  43. Opitz, B. ERP and fMRI correlates of target and novelty processing. In: J. Polich (Ed.), Detection of Change: Event-Related Potential and fMRI Findings. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, 2003: 117–132.Google Scholar
  44. Opitz, B., Mecklinger, A., Von Cramon, D.Y. and Kruggel, F. Combining electrophysiological and hemodynamic measures of the auditory oddball. Psychophysiology, 1999, 36: 142–147.Google Scholar
  45. Pardo, J.V., Fox, P. and Raichle, M. Localization of a human system for sustained attention by positron emission tomography. Nature, 1991, 349: 61–64.Google Scholar
  46. Pfefferbaum, A. and Ford, J.M. ERPs to stimuli requiring response production and inhibition: effects of age, probability and visual noise. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1988, 71: 55–63.Google Scholar
  47. Pfefferbaum, A., Ford, J.M., Roth, W.T. and Kopell, B.S. Age-related changes in auditory event-related potentials. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1980, 49: 266–276.Google Scholar
  48. Pfefferbaum, A., Ford, J.M., Weller, B.J. and Kopell, B.S. ERPs to response production and inhibition. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1985, 60: 423–434.Google Scholar
  49. Polich, J. Normal variation of P300 from auditory stimuli. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1986, 65: 236–240.Google Scholar
  50. Polich, J. Neuropsychology of P3a and P3b: A theoretical overview. In: K. Arikan and N. Moore (Eds.), Advances in Electrophysiology in Clinical Practice and Research., Kjellberg: Wheaton, IL, 2003a, in press.Google Scholar
  51. Polich, J. Overview of P3a and P3b. In: J. Polich (Ed.), Detection of Change: Event-Related Potential and fMRI Findings. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, 2003b: 83–98.Google Scholar
  52. Polich, J., Alexander, J.E., Bauer, L.O., Kuperman, S., Rohrbaugh, J., Mozarati, S., O'Connor, S.J., Porjesz, B. and Begleiter, H. P300 topography of amplitude/latency correlations. Brain Top., 1997, 9: 275–282.Google Scholar
  53. Polich, J. and Hoffman, L.D. P300 and handedness: Possible corpus callosal contributions to ERPs. Psychophysiology, 1998, 35: 497–507.Google Scholar
  54. Polich, J. and Conroy, M. P3a from visual stimuli: Normative variability and gender effects. In: I. Reinvang and H. Hermann (Eds.), fMRI and ERP findings of individual differences., Hanse Institute: Breman, Germany, 2003, in press.Google Scholar
  55. Polich, J. and Squire, L.R. P300 from amnesic patients with bilateral hippocampal lesions. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1993, 86: 408–417.Google Scholar
  56. Posner, M.I. Attention as a cognitive and neural system. Cur. Dir. Psychol. Sci., 1992, 1: 11–14.Google Scholar
  57. Posner, M.I. and Petersen, S.E. The attention system of the human brain. Ann. Rev. Neurosci., 1990, 13: 25–42.Google Scholar
  58. Potts, G.F., Liotti, M., Tucker, D.M. and Posner, M.I. Frontal and inferior temporal cortical activity in visual target detection: Evidence from high spatially sampled event-related potentials. Brain Top., 1996, 9: 3–14.Google Scholar
  59. Semlitsch, H.V., Anderer, P., Schuster, P. and Presslich, O. A solution for reliable and valid reduction of ocular artifacts, applied to the P300 ERP. Psychophysiology, 1986, 23: 695–703.Google Scholar
  60. Simons, R.F., Graham, F.K., Miles, M.A. and Chen, X. On the relationship of P3a and the novelty-P3. Biol. Psychol., 2001, 56: 207–218.Google Scholar
  61. Spencer, K.M., Dien, J. and Donchin, E. A componential analysis of the ERP elicited by novel events using a dense electrode array. Psychophysiology, 1999, 36: 409–414.Google Scholar
  62. Squires, N.K., Squires, K.C. and Hillyard, S.A. Two varieties of long-latency positive waves evoked by unpredictable auditory stimuli in man. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1975, 38: 387–401.Google Scholar
  63. Suwazono, S., Machado, L. and Knight, R.T. Predictive value of novel stimuli modifies visual event-related potentials and behavior. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2000, 111: 20–39.Google Scholar
  64. Verbaten, M.N., Huyben, M.A. and Kemner, C. Processing capacity and the frontal P3. Int. J. Psychophysiol., 1997, 25: 237–248.Google Scholar
  65. Verleger, R. On the utility of P3 latency as an index of mental chronometry. Psychophysiology, 1997, 34: 131–156.Google Scholar
  66. Yamaguchi, S. and Knight, R.T. P300 generation by novel somatosensory stimuli. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1991a, 78: 50–55.Google Scholar
  67. Yamaguchi, S. and Knight, R. Age effects on the P300 to novel somatosensory stimuli. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1991b, 78: 297–301.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Polich
    • 1
  • Marco D. Comerchero
    • 1
  1. 1.The Scripps Research Institute,La Jolla,USA

Personalised recommendations