Second Thoughts : Multiple P 3 OOs Elicited by a Single Stimulus

In a previous report (Johnson & Donchin, 1978), we manipulated the discriminability of tone pairs that delivered feedback information in a time-estimation paradigm. As in other experiments using feedback stimuli, the event-related potentials elicited by these stimuli did not return to baseline in the 800-ms poststimulus interval. Since we were interested in this “Slow Wave'’activity, the poststimulus interval was lengthened to 1500 ms. Averages revealed that a second positive peak was present for some of the individual subjects. To investigate this activity further, the filtered singletrial waveforms were inspected visually. These data were characterized by the presence of one, and occasionally two, positive peaks, with highly variable latencies, following the P300. These peaks were indistinguishable in frequency and general appearance from the P300s elicited by the feedback stimuli. After latency adjusting the waveforms on the peak of the second positive wave, amplitude and latency were quantified. Whereas P300 amplitude was directly related to stimulus discriminability and positive feedback elicited larger P300s than negative feedback, the amplitude of the second positive wave was constant across levels of discriminability and the same for both types of feedback. In contrast, the latencies of both waves were inversely related to stimulus discriminability and shorter following positive feedback than negative feedback. Evidence is presented to support our contention that these additional positive peaks represent P300 activity. The data are discussed in terms of what these multiple P300s reveal about human information processing.

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

[2]  E Donchin,et al.  Event-related brain potentials and subjective probability in a learning task , 1980, Memory & cognition.

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

[4]  S Sutton,et al.  P300 and feedback provided by absence of the stimulus. , 1981, Psychophysiology.

[5]  E Donchin,et al.  On how P300 amplitude varies with the utility of the eliciting stimuli. , 1978, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[6]  S Sutton,et al.  P300 and slow wave in a message consisting of two events. , 1982, Psychophysiology.

[7]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Memory and cognition , 1977 .

[8]  D. Ruchkin,et al.  The late positive complex. Advances and new problems. , 1984, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[9]  S A Hillyard,et al.  P3 waves to the discrimination of targets in homogeneous and heterogeneous stimulus sequences. , 1977, Psychophysiology.

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

[11]  A Pfefferbaum,et al.  P300 and long-term memory: latency predicts recognition performance. , 1985, Psychophysiology.

[12]  S Sutton,et al.  Quantitative evoked potential correlates of the probability of events. , 1970, Psychophysiology.

[13]  H G Vaughan,et al.  Event-related potential correlates of two stages of information processing in physical and semantic discrimination tasks. , 1983, Psychophysiology.

[14]  A Kok,et al.  P300 and uncertainty reduction in a concept-identification task. , 1981, Psychophysiology.

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

[16]  T W Picton,et al.  Neurophysiological correlates of human concept formation. , 1978, Behavioral biology.

[17]  E R John,et al.  Information Delivery and the Sensory Evoked Potential , 1967, Science.

[18]  D L Woods,et al.  Electrophysiological signs of split-second decision-making. , 1980, Science.

[19]  H G Vaughan,et al.  The scalp topography of potentials in auditory and visual Go/NoGo tasks. , 1977, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[20]  Daniel S. Ruchkin,et al.  The Late Positive Complex , 1984, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[21]  L W Poon,et al.  Changes of antero-posterior distribution of CNV and late positive component as a function of information processing demands. , 1974, Psychophysiology.

[22]  K. B. Campbell,et al.  Evoked potential correlates of human information processing , 1979, Biological Psychology.

[23]  N. Squires,et al.  Two varieties of long-latency positive waves evoked by unpredictable auditory stimuli in man. , 1975, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[24]  T W Picton,et al.  Event-related potentials during a problem-solving task. , 1980, Progress in brain research.

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

[26]  D. Jenness.  Auditory evoked-response differentiation with discrimination learning in humans. , 1972, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[27]  T W Picton,et al.  Feedback evoked potentials during an auditory concept formation task. , 1980, Progress in brain research.

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

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

[30]  Ray Johnson,et al.  Graded changes in evoked response (P300) amplitude as a function of cognitive activity , 1973 .

[31]  S Sutton,et al.  Emitted P300 and slow wave event-related potentials in guessing and detection tasks. , 1980, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

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