Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The neural correlation of sustained attention in performing conjunctive continuous performance task: an event-related potential study

Behzadnia, Amin, Ghassemi, Farnaz, Chermahini, Soghra A., Tabanfar, Zahra, Taymourtash, Athena·2018·NeuroReport
DOI 10.1097/wnr.0000000000001062
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Owing to great improvements in cognitive neuroscience, the study of brain functions during different types of cognitive tasks has attracted much attention. Recording event-related potentials (ERPs) is an appropriate tool for such a purpose, as it is noninvasive and affordable. Attention is among the most studied cognitive processes. In this study, a visual version of the conjunctive continuous performance task-visual was used to examine the differences of cognitive processes in target and nontarget stimuli. Twenty healthy individuals (average age: 23 years) participated in the study. Electroencephalogram signals were recorded from all participants during conjunctive continuous performance task-visual. After preprocessing, the ERPs were calculated by averaging the epochs that were time-locked to the stimulus onset. Then, the ERPs of the two groups of target and nontarget stimuli, from the aspects of differences in the P300 and N200 morphological features, were analyzed in three midline channels: Pz, Fz, and Cz. According to the results, the P300 amplitudes were significantly larger in the target than those in the nontarget stimuli. The P300 latencies were also larger in the target than in the nontarget stimuli, but the difference was only significant in the Pz channel ERPs. For the N200 component, the negativity of amplitudes was significantly more enhanced in the target than in the nontarget stimuli. However, for the N200 latencies, no significant difference was found based o…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/wnr.0000000000001062

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Shalev, 2011, Conjunctive continuous performance task (CCPT) – a pure measure of sustained attention, Neuropsychologia, 49, 2584, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.05.006 · DOI
  2. Patel, 2005, Characterization of N200 and P300: selected studies of the event-related potential, Int J Med Sci, 2, 147, 10.7150/ijms.2.147 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Sutton, 1965, Evoked-potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty, Science, 150, 1187, 10.1126/science.150.3700.1187 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Johnson, 1988, The amplitude of the P300 component of the event-related potential: Review and synthesis, Adv Psychophysiol, 3, 69
  5. Courchesne, 1977, P3 waves to the discrimination of targets in homogeneous and heterogeneous stimulus sequences, Psychophysiology, 14, 590, 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1977.tb01206.x · DOI
  6. Kutas, 1990, Late positive event-related potentials after commissural section in humans, J Cogn Neurosci, 2, 258, 10.1162/jocn.1990.2.3.258 · DOI
  7. Koelega, 1992, Time effects on event-related brain potentials and vigilance performance, Biol Psychol, 34, 59, 10.1016/0301-0511(92)90024-O · DOI
  8. Kirmizi-Alsan, 2006, Comparative analysis of event-related potentials during Go/NoGo and CPT: decomposition of electrophysiological markers of response inhibition and sustained attention, Brain Res, 1104, 114, 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.03.010 · DOI
  9. Polich, 2007, Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b, Clin Neurophysiol, 118, 2128, 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Railo, 2011, Tracking the processes behind conscious perception: a review of event-related potential correlates of visual consciousness, Conscious Cogn, 20, 972, 10.1016/j.concog.2011.03.019 · DOI
  11. Pedroso, 2017, Effects of physical activity on the P300 component in elderly people: a systematic review, Psychogeriatrics, 17, 479, 10.1111/psyg.12242 · DOI
  12. Dockree, 2005, Neurophysiological markers of alert responding during goal-directed behavior: a high-density electrical mapping study, Neuroimage, 27, 587, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.05.044 · DOI
  13. Butti, 2006, Multimodal analysis of a sustained attention protocol: Continuous Performance Test assessed with Near Infrared Spectroscopy and EEG, Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, 1, 1040, 10.1109/IEMBS.2006.260493 · DOI
  14. Ghassemi, 2010, Effects of correct and wrong answers on ERPs recorded under conditions of the continuous performance test in ADHD/normal participants, Neurophysiology, 42, 213, 10.1007/s11062-010-9152-6 · DOI
  15. De Houwer, 2010, Stop what you are not doing! Emotional pictures interfere with the task not to respond, Psychon Bull Rev, 17, 699, 10.3758/PBR.17.5.699 · DOI
  16. Dreisbach, 2004, How positive affect modulates cognitive control: reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility, J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 30, 343, 10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.343 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Ghanbarnejad, 2013, Factor structure of persian general health questionnaire-28 in dermatologic patients: a confirmatory factor analysis, Int Elec J Med, 2, 11
  18. Noorbala, 2009, The validation of general health questionnaire-28 as a psychiatric screening tool, Hakim Health Res J, 11, 47
  19. Borgaro, 2003, Convergence of different versions of the continuous performance test: clinical and scientific implications, J Clin Exp Neuropsychol, 25, 283, 10.1076/jcen.25.2.283.13646 · DOI
  20. Lehman, 2006, Auditory and visual continuous performance tests: relationships with age, gender, cognitive functioning, and classroom behavior, J Psychoeduc Assess, 24, 36, 10.1177/0734282905285238 · DOI
  21. Smith, 2007, Response priming in the Go/NoGo task: the N2 reflects neither inhibition nor conflict, Clin Neurophysiol, 118, 343, 10.1016/j.clinph.2006.09.027 · DOI
  22. Ramautar, 2013, Coupling of infraslow fluctuations in autonomic and central vigilance markers: Skin temperature, EEG beta power and ERP P300 latency, Int J Psychophysiol, 89, 158, 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2013.01.001 · DOI
  23. Shin, 2016, Electrophysiological revelations of trial history effects in a color oddball search task, Psychophysiology, 53, 1878, 10.1111/psyp.12766 · DOI
  24. Eimer, 2000, An ERP study of sustained spatial attention to stimulus eccentricity, Biol Psychol, 52, 205, 10.1016/S0301-0511(00)00028-4 · DOI
  25. Katayama, 1999, Auditory and visual P300 topography from a 3 stimulus paradigm, Clin Neurophysiol, 110, 463, 10.1016/S1388-2457(98)00035-2 · DOI

Cited by

See all 6

Metadata

Authors
Behzadnia, A., Ghassemi, F., Chermahini, S. A., Tabanfar, Z., & Taymourtash, A.
Venue
NeuroReport
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2018-08-01
Volume
29
Issue
11
Pages
954-961
ISSN
0959-4965
DOI
10.1097/wnr.0000000000001062
Cited by
6
References
1
Language
en

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.