Cited by 93Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeural dynamics and brain function

New insights into old waves. Matching stimulus- and response-locked ERPs on the same time-window

Berchicci, M., Spinelli, D., Di Russo, F.·2016·Biological Psychology

Abstract

We compared the effect of locking the event-related potentials (ERPs) on the stimulus vs. the response in a simple (SRT) and in a discriminative (DRT, equally probable Go/No-go) visuo-motor task. The accurate alignment of stimulus- and response-locked ERPs on the same time scale was obtained selecting a group of 27 participants with low inter-individual response time (RT) variation in the two tasks to reduce the jitter of RTs. Two-second epochs were defined for the analyses based on averaged RTs in the two tasks. Results show that the preparatory pre-stimulus activities (i.e., the pN and the BP components) were not affected by the different locking in both SRT and DRT. As expected, the exogenous post-stimulus P1 and N1 components (and the P2, present only in SRT) were larger in stimulus- than response-locked averaging; the same trend was observed for the less-known prefrontal N1 and P1 components (pN1 and pP1) that were larger in stimulus-locked averaging (the effect was not significant in SRT). The prefrontal pP2 component was only present in DRT peaking around 370 ms, and did not show an effect of locking. The frontal-central N2 component was enhanced by response-locked averaging in SRT, while it did not show effects of locking in DRT. The P3 component peaked at about 350ms over central sites in SRT, and at about 500ms over parietal sites in DRT; in both cases its amplitude was larger in response- than in stimulus-locked averaging. Overall, the amplitude of the preparatory components was independent from locking, the exogenous components were enhanced by stimulus locking, and the late components were more related to the response than to the stimulus. Concluding, to investigate action preparation, perception, and perceptual-decisional activity ERP studies should adopt stimulus-locked averaging with an appropriate baseline and longer pre-stimulus interval, or use both types of locking.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2016.04.007

Cites

126 of 126 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 128 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berchicci, M., Spinelli, D., & Di Russo, F.
Affiliations
Foro Italico University of Rome (IT)
Corresponding author
Berchicci, M.
Venue
Biological Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-05
Volume
117
Pages
202-215
ISSN
0301-0511 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2340136764
Cited by
93
References
128
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 6
FWCI
8.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biological Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (2010ENPRYE_002)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
event-related potentials, visuomotor task, reaction time variability, P300, N2 component, P1 component, N1 component, action preparation, perceptual decision making
MeSH terms
Adult, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Task Performance and Analysis, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review