Cited by 376Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeural dynamics and brain functionEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

The classic P300 encodes a build‐to‐threshold decision variable

Open access
Twomey, Deirdre M., Murphy, Peter R., Kelly, Simon P., O'Connell, Redmond G.·2015·European Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The P300 component of the human event‐related potential has been the subject of intensive experimental investigation across a five‐decade period, owing to its apparent relevance to a wide range of cognitive functions and its sensitivity to numerous brain disorders, yet its exact contribution to cognition remains unresolved. Here, we carry out key analyses of the P300 elicited by transient auditory and visual targets to examine its potential role as a ‘decision variable’ signal that accumulates evidence to a decision bound. Consistent with the latter, we find that the P300 reaches a stereotyped amplitude immediately prior to response execution and that its rate of rise scales with target detection difficulty and accounts for trial‐to‐trial variance in RT . Computational simulations of an accumulation‐to‐bound decision process faithfully captured P300 dynamics when its parameters were set by model fits to the RT distributions. Thus, where the dominant explanatory accounts have conceived of the P300 as a unitary neural event, our data reveal it to be a dynamically evolving neural signature of decision formation. These findings place the P300 at the heart of a mechanistically principled framework for understanding decision‐making in both the typical and atypical human brain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ejn.12936

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Twomey, D. M., Murphy, P. R., Kelly, S. P., & O'Connell, R. G.
Affiliations
  • Trinity College Dublin (IE)
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • City College of New York (US)
  • Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, Lloyd Building Trinity College Dublin Dublin 2 Ireland
Venue
European Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-05-28
Volume
42
Issue
1
Pages
1636-1643
ISSN
  • 0953-816X (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-9568
OpenAlex
W1978718038
Cited by
376
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 4
FWCI
19.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (BCS- 1358955)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
P300, event-related potentials, decision variables, evidence accumulation, decision-making, response execution, reaction time variability, computational modeling
MeSH terms
Adult, Auditory Perception, Brain, Computer Simulation, Decision Making, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Neurological, Reaction Time, Visual Perception, Event-Related Potentials, P300, 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