6.14: Key Takeaways and References

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 137601

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

Key Takeaways

To ensure that ERP effects reflect psychological processes instead of low-level physical stimulus differences, it is important to follow the Hillyard Principle: Keep the stimuli constant and vary only the psychological conditions.
The impact of noise on data quality depends on both the nature of the noise (e.g., low- versus high-frequency) and the method of quantifying an ERP component (e.g., mean versus peak amplitude).
The standardized measurement error (SME) quantifies the standard error of an ERP amplitude or latency measurement. In simple cases, the standard error decreases as the square root of the number of trials increases. As a result, the signal-to-noise ratio increases as the square root of the number of trials increases (all else being equal).
Data quality typically declines when the activity being measured is distant in time from the baseline correction period.
It can be useful to look at the same data using both stimulus-locked and response-locked averages.
When averaging bins together, you need to think carefully about whether to weight the two bins equally or to weight by the number of trials per bin.
Overlapping activity from previous trials can be a significant confound, especially when combined with baseline correction.

References

Baker, D. H., Vilidaite, G., Lygo, F. A., Smith, A. K., Flack, T. R., Gouws, A. D., & Andrews, T. J. (2020). Power contours: Optimising sample size and precision in experimental psychology and human neuroscience. Psychological Methods. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/met0000337

Boudewyn, M. A., Luck, S. J., Farrens, J. L., & Kappenman, E. S. (2018). How Many Trials Does It Take to Get a Significant ERP Effect? It Depends. Psychophysiology, 55, e13049. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13049

Duncan-Johnson, C. C., & Donchin, E. (1977). On quantifying surprise: The variation of event-related potentials with subjective probability. Psychophysiology, 14, 456–467.

Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J., Joormann, J., & Blanke, L. (1990). Effects of errors in choice reaction tasks on the ERP under focused and divided attention. In C. H. M. Brunia, A. W. K. Gaillard, & A. Kok (Eds.), Psychophysiological Brain Research (pp. 192–195). Elsevier.

Gehring, W. J., Liu, Y., Orr, J. M., & Carp, J. (2012). The error-related negativity (ERN/Ne). In S. J. Luck & E. S. Kappenman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Event-Related Potential Components (pp. 231–292). Oxford University Press.

Kappenman, E. S., Farrens, J. L., Zhang, W., Stewart, A. X., & Luck, S. J. (2021). ERP CORE: An Open Resource for Human Event-Related Potential Research. NeuroImage, 225, 117465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117465

Luck, S. J. (2014). An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique, Second Edition. MIT Press.

Luck, S. J., & Hillyard, S. A. (1990). Electrophysiological evidence for parallel and serial processing during visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 603–617.

Luck, S. J., Kappenman, E. S., Fuller, R. L., Robinson, B., Summerfelt, A., & Gold, J. M. (2009). Impaired response selection in schizophrenia: Evidence from the P3 wave and the lateralized readiness potential. Psychophysiology, 46, 776–786.

Luck, S. J., Stewart, A. X., Simmons, A. M., & Rhemtulla, M. (2021). Standardized Measurement Error: A Universal Measure of Data Quality for Averaged Event-Related Potentials. Psychophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13793

Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (2013). Visual Working Memory Capacity: From Psychophysics and Neurobiology to Individual Differences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 391–400.

Luria, R., Balaban, H., Awh, E., & Vogel, E. K. (2016). The contralateral delay activity as a neural measure of visual working memory. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 62, 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.01.003

Polich, J. (2012). Neuropsychology of P300. In S. J. Luck & E. S. Kappenman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Event-Related Potential Components (pp. 159–188). Oxford University Press.

Squires, K., Wickens, C., Squires, N. K., & E. Donchin. (1976). The effect of stimulus sequence on the waveform of the cortical event-related potential. Science, 193, 1142–1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.959831

Vogel, E. K., Luck, S. J., & Shapiro, K. L. (1998). Electrophysiological evidence for a postperceptual locus of suppression during the attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1656–1674.

Woldorff, M. (1993). Distortion of ERP averages due to overlap from temporally adjacent ERPs: Analysis and correction. Psychophysiology, 30, 98–119.