No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Sensory Discrimination and its Relationship to the Cerebral Processing of Infrequent Stimuli
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2015
Abstract:
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
We recorded cerebral evoked potentials, back and forward averaged from the EMG onset of the responding muscle, in three reaction time tasks, each requiring an identical motor response to an identical stimulus but differing in the nature of the sensory discrimination required. Two types of stimuli were presented: a rare one to which the subject responded with finger-extension, and a frequent one to which no response was required. We found a close but variable relationship between the cerebral events associated with performance of a task and the timing of the motor response. As completion of the discrimination process was delayed relative to stimulus occurrence, EMG activity began later relative to the cerebral potentials. Moreover, we were able to record these cerebral events only from the response to the rare (unexpected) stimulus and not when subjects were required to respond to the frequent stimulus, suggesting that the sensory discrimination, in these experiments, is an event that occurred only in the processing of the unexpected stimulus.
- Type
- Original Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation 1987
References
1.Donchin, E, Israel, JB.Event-related potentials and psychological theory. In: Kornhuber, HH, Decke, L, eds. Motivation, Motor and Sensory Processes of the Brain. Electrical Potentials, Behavior, and Clinical Use. Amsterdam: Elsevier 1980; 697–715.Google Scholar
2.Hillyard, SA, Kutas, M.Electrophysiology of cognitive processing. Annu Rev Psychol 1983; 34: 33–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Gaillard, AWK, Verduin, CJ.Comparisons across paradigms: An ERP study. In: Posner, MI, Marin, OSM, eds. Mechanisms of Attention: Attention and Performance 11. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum 1985; 375–388.Google Scholar
4.Hansen, JC, Hillyard, SA.Endogenous brain potentials associated with selective auditory attention. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1980; 49: 277–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Kutas, M, McCarthy, G, Donchin, E.Augmenting mental chronometry: The P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. Science 1977; 197: 792–795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.McCarthy, G, Donchin, E.A metric for thought: A comparison of P300 latency and reaction time. Science 1981; 211: 77–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Renault, B, Ragot, R, Leserve, N, Remond, A.Onset and offset of brain events as indices of mental chronometry. Science 1982; 215: 1413–1415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Ritter, W, Simson, R, Vaughan, HG Jr, Friedman, D.A brain event related to the making of a sensory discrimination. Science 1979; 203: 1358–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Ford, JM, Roth, WT, Kopeli, BS.Auditory evoked potentials to unpredictable shifts in pitch. Psychophysiology 1976; 13: 32–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Goodin, DS, Squires, KC, Starr, A.Variations in early and late event related components of the auditory evoked potential with task difficulty. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1983; 55: 680–686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Magliero, A, Bashore, TR, Coles, MGH, Donchin, E.On the dependence of P300 latency on stimulus evaluation processes. Psycho-physiology 1984; 21: 171–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Ritter, W, Simson, R, Vaughan, HG Jr. Association cortex potentials and reaction time in auditory discrimination. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1972; 33: 547–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Roth, WT, Ford, JM, Kopeli, BS.Long latency evoked potentials and reaction time. Psychophysiology 1978; 15: 17–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Squires, N, Donchin, E, Squires, K, Grossberg, S.Bisensory stimulation: Inferring decision-related processes from the P300 component. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept] 1977; 3: 299–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Goodin, DS, Aminoff, MJ, Mantle, MM.Subclasses of event-related potentials: Response-locked and stimulus-locked components. Ann Neurol 1986; 20: 603–609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Duncan-Johnson, CC.P300 latency: A new metric of information processing. Psychophysiology 1981; 18: 207–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Fitzgerald, PG, Picton, TW.Event-related potentials recorded during the discrimination of improbable stimuli. Biol Psychol 1983; 17: 241–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Ford, JM, Mohs, RC, Pfefferbaum, A, Kopeli, BS.On the utility of P3 latency and RT for studying cognitive processes. In: Kornhuber, HH, Decke, L, eds. Motivation, Motor and Sensory Processes of the Brain. Electrical Potentials, Behavior, and Clinical Use. Amsterdam: Elsevier 1980; 661–667.Google Scholar
19.Ritter, W, Simson, R, Vaughan, HG Jr, Macht, M.Manipulation ofevent-related potential manifestations of information processing stages. Science 1982; 218: 909–911.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Ritter, W, Vaughan, HG Jr, Simson, R.On relating event-related potential components to stages of information processing. In: Gaillard, AWK and Ritter, W, eds. Tutorials in ERP Research: Endogenous Components. Amsterdam: North Holland 1983; 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Ritter, W, Simson, R, Vaughan, HG Jr. Event-related potential correlates of two stages of information processing in physical and semantic discrimination tasks. Psychophysiology 1983; 20: 168–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Goodin, DS, Aminoff, MJ.The relationship between the evoked potential and brain events in sensory discrimination and motor response. Brain 1984; 107: 241–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
You have
Access