Updating p300 an integrative theory of p3a and p3b mountain dating commercial

a subject is interrogated via the oddball paradigm much as they would be in a typical lie-detector situation.

This practice has recently enjoyed increased legal permissibility while conventional polygraphy has seen its use diminish, in part owing to the unconscious and uncontrollable aspects of the P300.

They presented subjects with either a cue that indicated whether the following stimulus would be a click or a flash, or a cue which required subjects to guess whether the following stimulus would be a click or a flash.

They found that when subjects were required to guess what the following stimulus would be, the amplitude of the "late positive complex" was larger than when they knew what the stimulus would be.

When examining evoked potentials to these stimuli (i.e., ERPs), Chapman and Bragdon found that both the numbers and the flashes elicited the expected sensory responses (e.g., visual N1 components), and that the amplitude of these responses varied in an expected fashion with the intensity of the stimuli.

They also found that the ERP responses to the numbers, but not to the light flashes, contained a large positivity that peaked around 300 ms after the stimulus appeared.

In a second experiment, they presented two cue types.

For one cue there was a 2 in 3 chance that the following stimulus would be a click and a 1 in 3 chance that the following stimulus would be a flash.

When recorded by electroencephalography (EEG), it surfaces as a positive deflection in voltage with a latency (delay between stimulus and response) of roughly 300 to 600 ms.

The signal is typically measured most strongly by the electrodes covering the parietal lobe.

Another important finding from these studies is that this late positive complex was observed for both the clicks and flashes, indicating that the physical type of the stimulus (auditory or visual) did not matter.

Comments are closed.