Intentional and unintentional contributions to nonspecific preparation: electrophysiological evidence

The authors hypothesized that there are distinct intentional and unintentional influences on nonspecific preparation for a future event. In 2 experiments, participants responded to an imperative stimulus (S-sub-2) that was presented equiprobably either 400 ms or 1,200 ms after the offset of a warning stimulus (S-sub-1). During the S-sub-1-S-sub-2 interval, the authors measured the contingent negative variation (CNV), an event-related brain potential reflecting nonspecific preparation. S-sub-1 provided either no information or reliable information about the duration of the impending S-sub-1-S-sub-2 interval, thereby allowing an intentional influence on the state of preparation. The effect of S-sub-1 information on the CNV was approximately additive to the effect of the S-sub-1-S-sub-2 interval that was used on the preceding trial. This supports the view that the preceding S-sub-1-S-sub-2 interval contributes unintentionally to the state of nonspecific preparation guided by a process of trace conditioning.