Literature DB >> 31953643

Performing various perceptual actions elicits differentiable P300 responses.

Joël Dickinson1, Emma Melanson2, Denis Vaillancourt3, Annie Roy-Charland2.   

Abstract

Several studies have explored the differentiation of visual action verbs (e.g., see, perceive, and notice). The vast number and variety to choose from, along with a common understanding between the meanings of the words, suggests that they may represent measurable differences in perceptual processing. The present study investigated how manipulating the visual action verb embedded into a common instruction could produce either differentiable electrophysiological or behavioral effects, or possibly both. It was hypothesized that the P300 component elicited during an oddball task would differ depending on the visual action that participants had been instructed to perform. Results support this hypothesis, but suggest that response bias also could contribute to action performance. When participants were asked to 'sense' deviants in an oddball task, the P300 differed in amplitude compared to when they were asked to 'distinguish' the deviants. In addition, participants displayed varying response times for the instructions 'notice' versus 'view', 'distinguish' versus 'sense', and 'notice' versus 'sense'. When considering the behavioral and ERP results together, we can conclude that response biases and perceptual cognitive processing both contribute to how identical stimuli can be processed depending on the visual action performed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Event-related potentials (ERPs); Instruction; P300; Perceptual action verb

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31953643     DOI: 10.1007/s10339-020-00949-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Process        ISSN: 1612-4782


  11 in total

Review 1.  Perceptual symbol systems.

Authors:  L W Barsalou
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 12.579

2.  Walking or talking? Behavioral and neurophysiological correlates of action verb processing.

Authors:  F Pulvermüller; M Härle; F Hummel
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.381

3.  Late positive ERP peaks observed in stimulus-response compatibility tasks tested under speed-accuracy instructions.

Authors:  C A Christensen; D Ivkovich; K J Drake
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 4.016

Review 4.  Brain mechanisms linking language and action.

Authors:  Friedemann Pulvermüller
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 34.870

5.  A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow model of human information processing.

Authors:  M G Coles; G Gratton; T R Bashore; C W Eriksen; E Donchin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 6.  Cognitive and biological determinants of P300: an integrative review.

Authors:  J Polich; A Kok
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 3.251

7.  Manipulation of P3 latency: speed vs. accuracy instructions.

Authors:  A Pfefferbaum; J Ford; R Johnson; B Wenegrat; B S Kopell
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1983-02

8.  Effects of visual-field and matching instruction on event-related potentials and reaction time.

Authors:  A Kok; R van De Vijver; A Bouma
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 2.310

9.  Effects of performance feedback on P300 and reaction time in closed head-injured outpatients.

Authors:  D Deacon; K B Campbell
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1991-02

10.  Impact of mental operation instructions.

Authors:  Joël Dickinson; Frank Szeligo
Journal:  Can J Exp Psychol       Date:  2008-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.