Cited by 60Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceCognitive Science and Education Research

P300 amplitude variations, prior probabilities, and likelihoods: a Bayesian ERP study

Open access
Kopp, Bruno, Seer, Caroline, Lange, Florian, Kluytmans, Anouck, Kolossa, Antonio, Fingscheidt, Tim, Hoijtink, Herbert·2016·Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

The capability of the human brain for Bayesian inference was assessed by manipulating probabilistic contingencies in an urn-ball task. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded in response to stimuli that differed in their relative frequency of occurrence (.18 to .82). A veraged ERPs with sufficient signal-to-noise ratio (relative frequency of occurrence > .5) were used for further analysis. Research hypotheses about relationships between probabilistic contingencies and ERP amplitude variations were formalized as (in-)equality constrained hypotheses. Conducting Bayesian model comparisons, we found that manipulations of prior probabilities and likelihoods were associated with separately modifiable and distinct ERP responses. P3a amplitudes were sensitive to the degree of prior certainty such that higher prior probabilities were related to larger frontally distributed P3a waves. P3b amplitudes were sensitive to the degree of likelihood certainty such that lower likelihoods were associated with larger parietally distributed P3b waves. These ERP data suggest that these antecedents of Bayesian inference (prior probabilities and likelihoods) are coded by the human brain.

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 · 10.3758/s13415-016-0442-3

Cites

85 of 85 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?

  • It is possible that the brain represents probability distributions over small collections of variables or variational approximations to probability distributions, but this would not affect the key argument, which stems from the unavoidable difficulty of finding isolated peaks in, and calculating the volume of, complex probability distributions.

    “Of course, it is possible that the brain represents probability distributions over small collections of variables [90,91], or variational approximations to probability distributions [92], but this would not affect our key argument, which stems from the unavoidable difficulty of finding isolated peaks in, and calculating the volume of, complex probability distributions.”

    From Bayesian Brains without Probabilities (2016) · cites this paper as [90]

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

1 of the 86 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Johnson, R., Jr. (1986). A triarchic model of P300 amplitude. Psychophysiology, 23(4), 367-384.
  2. Möcks, J., Gasser, T., & Köhler, W. (1988). Basic statistical parameters of event-related potentials. Journal of Psychophysiology, 2(1), 61-70.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kopp, B., Seer, C., Lange, F., Kluytmans, A., Kolossa, A., Fingscheidt, T., & Hoijtink, H.
Affiliations
  • Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Technische Universität Braunschweig (DE)
Corresponding author
Kopp, Bruno
Venue
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2016-07-12
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
911-928
ISSN
  • 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-135X
OpenAlex
W2473011566
Cited by
60
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2016: 2
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (406-12-001)
  • Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
Keywords
Bayesian inference, P300, P3a, P3b, prior probability, likelihood, event-related potentials, Bayesian model selection
MeSH terms
Adult, Bayes Theorem, Brain, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Likelihood Functions, Event-Related Potentials, P300, Young Adult, Anticipation, Psychological

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