Trial-by-Trial Fluctuations in the Event-Related Electroencephalogram Reflect Dynamic Changes in the Degree of Surprise

The P300 component of the human event-related brain potential has often been linked to the processing of rare, surprising events. However, the formal computational processes underlying the generation of the P300 are not well known. Here, we formulate a simple model of trial-by-trial learning of stimulus probabilities based on Information Theory. Specifically, we modeled the surprise associated with the occurrence of a visual stimulus to provide a formal quantification of the “subjective probability” associated with an event. Subjects performed a choice reaction time task, while we recorded their brain responses using electroencephalography (EEG). In each of 12 blocks, the probabilities of stimulus occurrence were changed, thereby creating sequences of trials with low, medium, and high predictability. Trial-by-trial variations in the P300 component were best explained by a model of stimulus-bound surprise. This model accounted for the data better than a categorical model that parametrically encoded the stimulus identity, or an alternative model of surprise based on the Kullback–Leibler divergence. The present data demonstrate that trial-by-trial changes in P300 can be explained by predictions made by an ideal observer keeping track of the probabilities of possible events. This provides evidence for theories proposing a direct link between the P300 component and the processing of surprising events. Furthermore, this study demonstrates how model-based analyses can be used to explain significant proportions of the trial-by-trial changes in human event-related EEG responses.

[1]  E. John,et al.  Evoked-Potential Correlates of Stimulus Uncertainty , 1965, Science.

[2]  E. Courchesne,et al.  Stimulus novelty, task relevance and the visual evoked potential in man. , 1975, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[3]  E. Donchin,et al.  On quantifying surprise: the variation of event-related potentials with subjective probability. , 1977, Psychophysiology.

[4]  J. R. Hughes Multidisciplinary perspectives in event-related brain potential research , 1980 .

[5]  E. Donchin Presidential address, 1980. Surprise!...Surprise? , 1981, Psychophysiology.

[6]  R. Johnson A triarchic model of P300 amplitude. , 1986, Psychophysiology.

[7]  Ray Johnson For Distinguished Early Career Contribution to Psychophysiology: Award Address, 1985 , 1986 .

[8]  E. Donchin,et al.  Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[9]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Elements of Information Theory , 2005 .

[10]  David J. C. MacKay,et al.  Bayesian Interpolation , 1992, Neural Computation.

[11]  Tzyy-Ping Jung,et al.  Independent Component Analysis of Electroencephalographic Data , 1995, NIPS.

[12]  T. Sejnowski,et al.  Removal of eye activity artifacts from visual event-related potentials in normal and clinical subjects , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[13]  T. Sejnowski,et al.  Removing electroencephalographic artifacts by blind source separation. , 2000, Psychophysiology.

[14]  D. Friedman,et al.  The novelty P3: an event-related brain potential (ERP) sign of the brain's evaluation of novelty , 2001, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[15]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  A Computational Theory of Surprise , 2002 .

[16]  K. R. Ridderinkhof,et al.  A computational account of altered error processing in older age: Dopamine and the error-related negativity , 2002, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[17]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Comparing dynamic causal models , 2004, NeuroImage.

[18]  Arnaud Delorme,et al.  EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis , 2004, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[19]  Rogier B. Mars,et al.  De Bruijn ERA, Mars RB, & Hulstijn W It wasn't me... or was it? How false feedback affects performance , 2004 .

[20]  A. Engel,et al.  Trial-by-Trial Coupling of Concurrent Electroencephalogram and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Identifies the Dynamics of Performance Monitoring , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[21]  Kenneth Hugdahl,et al.  Assessing the spatiotemporal evolution of neuronal activation with single-trial event-related potentials and functional MRI. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  Piotr Jaskowski,et al.  Evidence for an Integrative Role of P3b in Linking Reaction to Perception , 2005 .

[23]  Raymond J. Dolan,et al.  Information theory, novelty and hippocampal responses: unpredicted or unpredictable? , 2005, Neural Networks.

[24]  A. Engel,et al.  What is novel in the novelty oddball paradigm? Functional significance of the novelty P3 event-related potential as revealed by independent component analysis. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[25]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  Surprise: A Shortcut for Attention? , 2005 .

[26]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system. , 2005, Psychological bulletin.

[27]  Francisco Barceló,et al.  Task Switching and Novelty Processing Activate a Common Neural Network for Cognitive Control , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[28]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[29]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Encoding uncertainty in the hippocampus , 2006, Neural Networks.

[30]  Angela J. Yu,et al.  Phasic norepinephrine: A neural interrupt signal for unexpected events , 2006, Network.

[31]  Tom Eichele,et al.  Tracking pattern learning with single-trial event-related potentials , 2006, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[32]  A. Engel,et al.  Single-trial EEG–fMRI reveals the dynamics of cognitive function , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[33]  K. Doya,et al.  Understanding Neural Coding through the Model-Based Analysis of Decision Making , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[34]  M. Roth,et al.  Single‐trial analysis of oddball event‐related potentials in simultaneous EEG‐fMRI , 2007, Human brain mapping.

[35]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Variational free energy and the Laplace approximation , 2007, NeuroImage.

[36]  Michael X. Cohen,et al.  Behavioral / Systems / Cognitive Reinforcement Learning Signals Predict Future Decisions , 2007 .

[37]  C. Summerfield,et al.  An information theoretical approach to prefrontal executive function , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[38]  Timothy E. J. Behrens,et al.  Learning the value of information in an uncertain world , 2007, Nature Neuroscience.

[39]  Robert T Knight,et al.  An information-theoretical approach to contextual processing in the human brain: evidence from prefrontal lesions. , 2007, Cerebral cortex.

[40]  Clay B. Holroyd,et al.  Hierarchical error processing: Different errors, different systems , 2007, Brain Research.

[41]  Francisco Barceló,et al.  An Information Theoretical Approach to Task-Switching: Evidence from Cognitive Brain Potentials in Humans , 2007, Frontiers in human neuroscience.

[42]  J. Polich Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[43]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Influence of Uncertainty and Surprise on Human Corticospinal Excitability during Preparation for Action , 2008, Current Biology.

[44]  N. Chater,et al.  Précis of Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning , 2009, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[45]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  Bayesian surprise attracts human attention , 2005, Vision Research.