Cited by 455Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeural dynamics and brain function

Internal and External Influences on the Rate of Sensory Evidence Accumulation in the Human Brain

Open access
Kelly, Simon P., O'Connell, Redmond G.·2013·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

We frequently need to make timely decisions based on sensory evidence that is weak, ambiguous, or noisy resulting from conditions in the external environment (e.g., a cluttered visual scene) or within the brain itself (e.g., inattention, neural noise). Here we examine how externally and internally driven variations in the quality of sensory evidence affect the build-to-threshold dynamics of a supramodal “decision variable” signal and, hence, the timing and accuracy of decision reports in humans. Observers performed a continuous-monitoring version of the prototypical two-alternative dot-motion discrimination task, which is known to strongly benefit from sequential sampling and temporal accumulation of evidence. A centroparietal positive potential (CPP), which we previously established as a supramodal decision signal based on its invariance to motor or sensory parameters, exhibited two key identifying properties associated with the “decision variable” long described in sequential sampling models: (1) its buildup rate systematically scaled with sensory evidence strength across four levels of motion coherence, consistent with temporal integration; and (2) its amplitude reached a stereotyped level at the moment of perceptual report executions, consistent with a boundary-crossing stopping criterion. The buildup rate of the CPP also strongly predicted reaction time within coherence levels (i.e., independent of physical evidence strength), and this endogenous variation was linked with attentional fluctuations indexed by the level of parieto-occipital α-band activity preceding target onset. In tandem with the CPP, build-to-threshold dynamics were also observed in an effector-selective motor preparation signal; however, the buildup of this motor-specific process significantly lagged that of the supramodal process.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.3355-13.2013

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The P3 may encode motivationally significant events, which in the present study were the saliently colored/ethnic Black hands during SRC processing.

    “This suggests that the P3 may encode motivationally significant events, which, in the present study, were the saliently colored/ethnic Black hands during SRC processing, potentially contributing to a dynamic decision process of linking perception to action31,42–45”

    From Event-related potentials of automatic imitation are modulated by ethnicity during stimulus processing, but not during motor execution (2018) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) describes the P300/P3b as evoked by task-relevant events requiring decisions and proposes viewing it as a dynamically evolving decision process. It does not characterize those events as motivationally significant. The identification of Black hands as such events is the citing authors’ interpretation of their own study, not a finding of this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The role of the P3 component lies in bridging stimulus perception and response execution in a dynamically evolving decision process.

    “It has been suggested that the role of the P3 component lies in bridging stimulus perception and response execution31,44 in a dynamically evolving decision process, linking sensory encoding of stimulus perception to the preparation of action42,43,45, and/or response control44.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kelly, S. P., & O'Connell, R. G.
Affiliations
City College of New York (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2013-12-11
Volume
33
Issue
50
Pages
19434-19441
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2119976941
Cited by
455
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 17
FWCI
13.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Repository UCD (University College Dublin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Trinity's Access to Research Output (TARA) (Trinity College Dublin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
sensory evidence accumulation, sequential sampling, decision variables, motion coherence, temporal integration, boundary crossing, reaction time, alpha activity, attentional fluctuations, motor preparation, perceptual decision making
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Decision Making, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Neurological, Reaction Time

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