Jove
Visualize
Contact Us

Related Experiment Videos

Two cognitive systems simultaneously prepared for opposite events.

W Ritter1, E Sussman, D Deacon

  • 1Department of Neuroscience, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY 10461, USA.

Psychophysiology
|November 11, 1999
PubMed
Summary

In a go/no-go task, event-related potentials (ERPs) revealed that while higher cognitive systems anticipated target tones (P3), preattentive systems prepared for frequent tones (MMN), showing simultaneous preparation for opposing events.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes from three different temperate grazed pastures using Eddy covariance measurements.

The Science of the total environment·2022
Same author

Application of Bayesian statistics to estimate nitrous oxide emission factors of three nitrogen fertilisers on UK grasslands.

Environment international·2019
Same author

Seasonal fluxes of carbon monoxide from an intensively grazed grassland in Scotland.

Atmospheric environment (Oxford, England : 1994)·2019
Same author

Broken Chains and Reneging: A Review of 1748 Kidney Paired Donation Transplants.

American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons·2017
Same author

Mental Objects in Working Memory: Development of Basic Capacity or of Cognitive Completion?

Advances in child development and behavior·2017
Same author

Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair as a First Line Treatment Option to Treat Short Necked, Juxtarenal, and Suprarenal Aneurysms.

European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery·2016
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Psychophysiology

Background:

  • Event-related potentials (ERPs) measure brain activity in response to stimuli.
  • The go/no-go task assesses response inhibition and control.
  • P3 and Mismatch Negativity (MMN) are key ERP components reflecting cognitive processes.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the interplay between higher-order cognitive systems (P3) and preattentive systems (MMN) during a predictable reaction time task.
  • To examine how stimulus predictability influences ERPs and reaction times.
  • To determine if expectation affects different levels of cognitive processing simultaneously.

Main Methods:

  • Recording ERPs during a go/no-go reaction time task with predictable and unpredictable tone conditions.
  • Utilizing visual cues to signal the probability of rare target tones.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analyzing P3 and MMN components in relation to task conditions and behavioral responses.

    • Main Results:

    • Faster reaction times (RT) were observed in the predictable condition.
    • Rare visual stimuli elicited P3, indicating violated expectations.
    • Rare tones elicited MMN despite predictability, suggesting preattentive processing of frequent events.
    • P3 and RT data indicated anticipation of target tones.
    • MMN data suggested the preattentive system was set for frequent tones, unaffected by higher-order system information.

    Conclusions:

    • The study demonstrates simultaneous preparation for opposing events by distinct cognitive systems.
    • Higher-order cognitive systems (P3) anticipated rare targets, while preattentive systems (MMN) prepared for frequent tones.
    • Predictability influences cognitive preparation at different processing levels, highlighting a dissociation between expectation and automatic deviance detection.