The effect of response execution on P3 latency, reaction time, and movement time.

This study examined the effect of response selection and execution on P3 latency during the performance of simple reaction time (RT) and stimulus-response compatibility tasks. Response time on these tasks was defined in terms of RT and movement time (MT). Event-related brain potentials were recorded from 67 female participants concurrently with the performance measures. On the simple RT task, the distance of the response button from the home button was varied (7, 15, and 23 cm). When stimulus evaluation demands were minimal, response execution affected P3 latency, with increased response button distance resulting in increased P3 latency. However, these movement effects were modest, and in most protocols, would not be a confounding factor. The stimulus-response compatibility task examined the interaction of stimulus evaluation demands and response requirements. RT, MT, and P3 latency were affected by stimulus congruency, whereas RT and P3 amplitude were affected by response compatibility.

[1]  A F Kramer,et al.  Simulation studies of latency measures of components of the event-related brain potential. , 1989, Psychophysiology.

[2]  A. Jensen,et al.  Reaction Time and Psychometric g , 1982 .

[3]  Richard Ragot,et al.  P300, as a function of S—R compatibility and motor programming , 1981, Biological Psychology.

[4]  A Pfefferbaum,et al.  Apparent response incompatibility effects on P3 latency depend on the task. , 1986, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[5]  Bernard Renault,et al.  Latencies of event related potentials as a tool for studying motor processing organization , 1988, Biological Psychology.

[6]  K. Brookhuis,et al.  Stage analysis of the reaction process using brain-evoked potentials and reaction time , 1984, Psychological research.

[7]  Feliks Jaroszyk,et al.  The relationship between latency of auditory evoked potentials, simple reaction time, and stimulus intensity , 1994, Psychological research.

[8]  E Donchin,et al.  A metric for thought: a comparison of P300 latency and reaction time. , 1981, Science.

[9]  J. Nandrino,et al.  Temporal localization of the response selection processing stage. , 1995, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[10]  J. R. Simon,et al.  Reactions toward the source of stimulation. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[11]  B. Renault,et al.  Effect of target position on the sequential organization of processing stages , 1992, Biological Psychology.

[12]  C. Doucet,et al.  Movement time differentiates extraverts from introverts , 1997 .

[13]  R. Ragot,et al.  Electrophysiological study of intrahemispheric S-R compatibility effects elicited by visual directional cues. , 1986, Psychophysiology.

[14]  T. Bashore,et al.  Stimulus-Response Compatibility Viewed from a Cognitiv E Psychophysiological Perspective , 1990 .

[15]  T W Picton,et al.  The P300 Wave of the Human Event‐Related Potential , 1992, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[16]  C. C. Duncan-Johnson Young Psychophysiologist Award address, 1980. P300 latency: a new metric of information processing. , 1981, Psychophysiology.

[17]  H. Leuthold,et al.  Covert effects of alcohol revealed by event-related potentials , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  W. E. Hick Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 1948, Nature.

[19]  W. Sommer,et al.  Postperceptual effects and P300 latency. , 1998, Psychophysiology.

[20]  M. Falkenstein,et al.  Late visual and auditory ERP components and choice reaction time , 1993, Biological Psychology.

[21]  Kenneth B. Campbell,et al.  Intelligence, reaction time, and event-related potentials , 1992 .

[22]  Judith M. Ford,et al.  The effect of stimulus-response incompatibility on P3 latency depends on the task but not on age , 1996, Biological Psychology.

[23]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[24]  B. Kopell,et al.  The Stroop effect: brain potentials localize the source of interference. , 1981, Science.

[25]  M. Manosevitz,et al.  High-Speed Scanning in Human Memory , 2022 .

[26]  E. Donchin,et al.  On the dependence of P300 latency on stimulus evaluation processes. , 1984, Psychophysiology.

[27]  G Fein,et al.  P300 latency variability in normal elderly: effects of paradigm and measurement technique. , 1989, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[28]  F. Valle-Inclán,et al.  The locus of interference in the Simon effect: an ERP study , 1996, Biological Psychology.

[29]  J M Ford,et al.  On the utility of P3 latency and RT for studying cognitive processes. , 1980, Progress in brain research.

[30]  K. Campbell,et al.  Reaction time and movement time as measures of stimulus evaluation and response processes , 1994 .

[31]  G. McCarthy,et al.  Augmenting mental chronometry: the P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. , 1977, Science.

[32]  H G Vaughan,et al.  Association cortex potentials and reaction time in auditory discrimination. , 1972, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[33]  F. Valle-Inclán The Simon effect and its reversal studied with event-related potentials. , 1996, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[34]  R. Ragot,et al.  Perceptual and motor space representation: an event-related potential study. , 1984, Psychophysiology.

[35]  R. Ragot,et al.  Mental processing during reactions toward and away from a stimulus: an ERP analysis of auditory congruence and S-R compatibility. , 1994, Psychophysiology.

[36]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization , 1986 .

[37]  A. Papanicolaou,et al.  Relationship between stimulus intensity and the P300. , 1985, Psychophysiology.

[38]  J Möcks,et al.  Novel approaches to the problem of latency jitter. , 1988, Psychophysiology.

[39]  E. A. Alluisi,et al.  Some variables influencing the rate of gain of information. , 1962, Journal of experimental psychology.

[40]  J. C. Woestenburg,et al.  The removal of the eye-movement artifact from the EEG by regression analysis in the frequency domain , 1983, Biological Psychology.

[41]  H. Frowein,et al.  Selective effects of barbiturate and amphetamine on information processing and response execution. , 1981, Acta psychologica.

[42]  A. Jensen,et al.  Reaction Time, Movement Time, and Intelligence , 1979 .

[43]  J. M. Cattell,et al.  THE INFLUENCE OF THE INTENSITY OF THE STIMULUS ON THE LENGTH OF THE REACTION TIME , 1886 .

[44]  John Polich,et al.  P300 from auditory stimuli: intensity and frequency effects , 1995, Biological Psychology.

[45]  P. Fitts The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[46]  R. Verleger On the utility of P3 latency as an index of mental chronometry. , 1997, Psychophysiology.