4.4 Article

Relationship of P300 single-trial responses with reaction time and preceding stimulus sequence

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 61, Issue 2, Pages 244-252

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.10.015

Keywords

P300; single trial; reaction time; stimulus sequence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Variation of single-trial P300 responses was studied both in relation to reaction times and to the preceding stimulus sequence in an auditory oddball paradigm. Single-trial responses were estimated with the Subspace regularization method that is based on Bayesian estimation and linear modeling. The results of the single-trial method were compared to those of averaging. Both methods showed that the latency of the P300 was shorter and its amplitude larger for faster than slower reaction times. The P300 latency was shorter for target tones that were preceded by a large number of standard tones compared to those preceded by a small number of standard tones. The P300 amplitude was statistically significantly affected by the stimulus sequence only when analyzed with conventional averaging. In-depth analysis of standard deviations showed that the variability of the P300 single-trial latencies could explain the differences between the two methods. Specifically, the regression analysis showed that the latency correlated negatively with the number of preceding standard tones and positively with the reaction time, whereas the P300 amplitude correlated positively with the number of the preceding standard stimuli and negatively with the reaction time. The analysis of the single-trial responses gives information about the behavior of the P300 component that is lost with conventional averaging. The method used in this study is independent of Subjective decision making and can be used to model changes in the dynamical behavior of the P300 component objectively. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available