ERP Correlates of Identity Negative Priminghecke/archiv/dortmund.pdf · ERP Correlates of Identity Negative Priming ... ”aging effects in selective attention ... P1 P2 AF3 AF4 FC3

ERP Correlates of Identity Negative Priming


Jörg Behrendt1,3 Henning Gibbons4 Hecke Schrobsdorff1,2

Matthias Ihrke1,3 J. Michael Herrmann1,2 Marcus Hasselhorn1,3

1 Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Göttingen2 University of Göttingen, Institute for Nonlinear Dynamics

3 Georg-Elias-Müller-Institute for Psychology, GöttingenSection for Educational and Developmental Psychology

4 Section for Biological Psychology

Psychologie & Gehirn 2007, Dortmund; Symposium 11Electrophysiological Correlates of Negative Priming

göttingen


Outline

1 Introduction

2 Identity Negative Priming Paradigm

3 Behavioral Results

4 Correlates of Negative Priming

5 Correlates of Single Object Trials

6 Discussion

göttingen


Introduction

Introduction

BCCN Göttingen Project C4

”aging effects in selective attention”

joint project of modelers and experimentalists

NP as main research tool

EEG recordings to access internal mechanisms

a modelers interest in ERPs...... will not be this talk’s topic

clarification of variance

localization of mechanisms in time and space

identification of processing steps

single trial fitting

göttingen


Identity Negative Priming Paradigm


time

Prime Probe

reactionresponse stimulus interval

0−1500 ms 500 ms

stimulus onset

continuous identity priming paradigm with speech reaction

green ↔ target, red ↔ distractor

randomized response-stimulus interval 500-2000 ms

göttingen



Stimulus Material

*

göttingen



Stimulus Material

*

equalsaturation

equalcovered area

balancedrecognizablity

similarcomplexity

plosive [b]beginning

experimentallyoptimized

göttingen



Experimental SetupGeneral

identification task

continuous presentation

voice-key recording

Conditions8 priming conditions

balanced in each block

randomized RSI 500–2000 ms

Recording

64 channels

extended 10-20 system

reference: FCz

Subjects

16 young subjects

age = 26y , SD = 5y

Design

30 test trials

20 baseline trials pre and post, single objects

20 blocks with 40+2 trials → 840 trials

göttingen



Standard Priming Conditions

NP

Prime Probe

PP

CO

probe distractor present

Control (CO): 16%

Positive Priming (PP): 13%

Negative Priming (NP): 12%

göttingen



Single Object Priming Conditions

NPSO

Prime Probe

PPSO

COSO

single probe target

Control (COSO): 10%

Positive Priming (PPSO): 10%

Negative Priming (NPSO):11%

post-SO trials

excluded from analysis

Control (SOCO): 16%

Positive Priming (SOPP): 14%

no Negative Priming

göttingen


Behavioral Results

Behavioral Results

with probe distractor

RT SD effect Cohen d[ms] [ms] [ms] effect

CO 779 196 — —PP 641 136 138 0.967NP 808 210 -29 0.149

without probe distractor


COSO 696 184 — —PPSO 620 148 76 0.533NPSO 715 194 -19 0.092

control PP NP

02

00

40

06

00

80

0

Re

act

ion

Tim

e [

ms]

⋆⋆ ⋆⋆

göttingen


Behavioral Results

Behavioral Results

with probe distractor


CO 779 196 — —PP 641 136 138 0.967NP 808 210 -29 0.149

without probe distractor


COSO 696 184 — —PPSO 620 148 76 0.533NPSO 715 194 -19 0.092

COSO PPSO NPSO

02

00

40

06

00

80

0

Re

act

ion

Tim

e [

ms]

⋆⋆ ⋆⋆

göttingen


Behavioral Results

Distractor Presence or Absence

control PP NP

02

00

40

06

00

80

0

Re

act

ion

Tim

e [

ms]

COSO PPSO NPSO

⋆⋆ ⋆⋆

⋆⋆ ⋆⋆

göttingen


Correlates of Negative Priming

EEG Data Processing

downsampling to 500Hz

band pass filter: [0.2,20]Hz

conditional segmentation [-100,1500]ms

baseline correction for [-100,0]ms

ocular correction (Gratton & Coles), VEOG channel: FPz

reconstruction of FPz = (FP1+FP2)/2

low cutoff filter 0.5Hz

baseline correction for [-100,0]ms

artifact rejection, bounds [-100,100]µV)≤ 10% trials excluded

new reference: (TP10+TP9)/2, reconstruction of FCz

average

göttingen



Statistical Analysis of the ERPs

Hypothesis

left-parietal predominance of P3 amplitude of primed trialscompared to CO [Stahl,Gibbons in press]

Procedure

systematic analysis of components

clustering of electrodes for analysis

lateralization: {P1, P3, P5, P7} ↔ {P2, P4, P6. P8}

göttingen



ERP Analysis

NPPPCO

1s

10µ

V

Fp1 Fp2

F3 F4

C3 C4

P3 P4

O1 O2

F7 F8

T7 T8

P7 P8

Fz

Cz

Pz

Oz

FC1 FC2

CP1 CP2

FC5 FC6

CP5 CP6

TP9

F1 F2

C1 C2

P1 P2

AF3 AF4

FC3 FC4

CP3 CP4

PO3 PO4

F5 F6

C5 C6

P5 P6

AF7 AF8

FT7 FT8

TP7 TP8

PO7 PO8

Fpz

AFz

CPz

POz

J. Behrendt, H. Gibbons, HS, M. Ihrke, J. M. Herrmann, M. HasselhornEvent-Related Brain Potential Correlates of Identity Negative Priming,in preparation

göttingen



ERP Analysis

NPPPCO

1s

10µ

V

Fp1 Fp2

F3 F4

C3 C4

P3 P4

O1 O2

F7 F8

T7 T8

P7 P8

Fz

Cz

Pz

Oz

FC1 FC2

CP1 CP2

FC5 FC6

CP5 CP6

TP9

F1 F2

C1 C2

P1 P2

AF3 AF4

FC3 FC4

CP3 CP4

PO3 PO4

F5 F6

C5 C6

P5 P6

AF7 AF8

FT7 FT8

TP7 TP8

PO7 PO8

Fpz

AFz

CPz

POz


P5 NPPPCO

P6 NPPPCO

göttingen



ERP Analysis

NPPPCO

1s

10µ

V

Fp1 Fp2

F3 F4

C3 C4

P3 P4

O1 O2

F7 F8

T7 T8

P7 P8

Fz

Cz

Pz

Oz

FC1 FC2

CP1 CP2

FC5 FC6

CP5 CP6

TP9

F1 F2

C1 C2

P1 P2

AF3 AF4

FC3 FC4

CP3 CP4

PO3 PO4

F5 F6

C5 C6

P5 P6

AF7 AF8

FT7 FT8

TP7 TP8

PO7 PO8

Fpz

AFz

CPz

POz


FpZ NPPPCO

göttingen




Procedure

systematic analysis of components

No effects found for P1 (≈ 102ms),N1 (≈ 174ms), P2(≈ 230ms) , N2 (≈ 270ms)

posterior P3 (≈ 360ms)

frontal positive slow wave (≈ 700ms)

strong priming effect on PSW peak latency, thereforeamplitude determination with individual time windows

göttingen




P3 Results

latency: main effect priming (p < .05)no individual significant effects

amplitude: main effect priming (p < .05)significant differences of NP, PP to CO (p < .05)

lateralization

amplitude differences for {P1, P3, P5, P7} significantlylarger than control: NP (p < .001), PP (p < .05).

no amplitude differences for {P2, P4, P6. P8}:NP (p < .22), PP (p < .11).

göttingen




PSW Results

frontal PSW

latency: main effect priming (p < .01)

amplitude:differences between priming conditions (p < .001)PP ↔ NP (p < .001)PP ↔ CO (p < .05)NP ↔ CO (p < .001)

göttingen


Correlates of Single Object Trials

Preliminary Analysis of SO Trials

NPPPCO

1s

10µ

V

Fp1 Fp2

F3 F4

C3 C4

P3 P4

O1 O2

F7 F8

T7 T8

P7 P8

Fz

Cz

Pz

Oz

FC1 FC2

CP1 CP2

FC5 FC6

CP5 CP6

TP9

F1 F2

C1 C2

P1 P2

AF3 AF4

FC3 FC4

CP3 CP4

PO3 PO4

F5 F6

C5 C6

P5 P6

AF7 AF8

FT7 FT8

TP7 TP8

PO7 PO8

Fpz

AFz

CPz

POz

göttingen




NPPPCO

1s

10µ

V

Fp1 Fp2

F3 F4

C3 C4

P3 P4

O1 O2

F7 F8

T7 T8

P7 P8

Fz

Cz

Pz

Oz

FC1 FC2

CP1 CP2

FC5 FC6

CP5 CP6

TP9

F1 F2

C1 C2

P1 P2

AF3 AF4

FC3 FC4

CP3 CP4

PO3 PO4

F5 F6

C5 C6

P5 P6

AF7 AF8

FT7 FT8

TP7 TP8

PO7 PO8

Fpz

AFz

CPz

POz

P5 NPSOPPSOCOSO

P6 NPSOPPSOCOSO

göttingen




NPPPCO

1s

10µ

V

Fp1 Fp2

F3 F4

C3 C4

P3 P4

O1 O2

F7 F8

T7 T8

P7 P8

Fz

Cz

Pz

Oz

FC1 FC2

CP1 CP2

FC5 FC6

CP5 CP6

TP9

F1 F2

C1 C2

P1 P2

AF3 AF4

FC3 FC4

CP3 CP4

PO3 PO4

F5 F6

C5 C6

P5 P6

AF7 AF8

FT7 FT8

TP7 TP8

PO7 PO8

Fpz

AFz

CPz

POz

FpZ NPSOPPSOCOSO

göttingen



Comparison of Single Object Trials

NPNPSO

1s

10µ

V

Fp1 Fp2

F3 F4

C3 C4

P3 P4

O1 O2

F7 F8

T7 T8

P7 P8

Fz

Cz

Pz

Oz

FC1 FC2

CP1 CP2

FC5 FC6

CP5 CP6

TP9

F1 F2

C1 C2

P1 P2

AF3 AF4

FC3 FC4

CP3 CP4

PO3 PO4

F5 F6

C5 C6

P5 P6

AF7 AF8

FT7 FT8

TP7 TP8

PO7 PO8

Fpz

AFz

CPz

POz

göttingen




NPNPSO

1s

10µ

V

Fp1 Fp2

F3 F4

C3 C4

P3 P4

O1 O2

F7 F8

T7 T8

P7 P8

Fz

Cz

Pz

Oz

FC1 FC2

CP1 CP2

FC5 FC6

CP5 CP6

TP9

F1 F2

C1 C2

P1 P2

AF3 AF4

FC3 FC4

CP3 CP4

PO3 PO4

F5 F6

C5 C6

P5 P6

AF7 AF8

FT7 FT8

TP7 TP8

PO7 PO8

Fpz

AFz

CPz

POz

P5 NPPPCO

NPSOPPSOCOSO

P6 NPPPCO

NPSOPPSOCOSO

göttingen




NPNPSO

1s

10µ

V

Fp1 Fp2

F3 F4

C3 C4

P3 P4

O1 O2

F7 F8

T7 T8

P7 P8

Fz

Cz

Pz

Oz

FC1 FC2

CP1 CP2

FC5 FC6

CP5 CP6

TP9

F1 F2

C1 C2

P1 P2

AF3 AF4

FC3 FC4

CP3 CP4

PO3 PO4

F5 F6

C5 C6

P5 P6

AF7 AF8

FT7 FT8

TP7 TP8

PO7 PO8

Fpz

AFz

CPz

POz

FpZ NPPPCO

NPSOPPSOCOSO

göttingen


Discussion

Discussion of Experimental Results

left hemispheric reduced P300

effort of stimulus evaluation affects P300 amplitude

less effort for negative and positive priming conditionsdue to similarity of prime and probe display

result challenges inhibition based models of NP

favors episodic retrieval perspective

frontal positive slow wave

PSW amplitude reflects coordination complexity

most coordination in NP trials, least in PP-trials

episodic retrieval implies no amplitude effects NP – CO

inhibition model suggests no amplitude effects at all

göttingen


Discussion

Conclusion

Take Home Message

finding of correlates of identity NP

lateralized smaller P300 for NP, PP

in consistence with [Stahl, Gibbons in press]

PSW reduction for NP, higher PSW for PP

Outlook

identifying sources of variance in the EEG-data

wavelet analysis for single trials

intensive data mining for identification of ERP differencese.g. classification of trials by a multilayer perceptron

göttingen


Discussion

Thanks ...

... to the Experts

Henning Gibbons

Torsten Wüstenberg

Ralph Meier

Miguel ValenciaUstárroz

... to the BCCN People

Theo Geisel

Michael Herrmann

Marcus Hasselhorn

Tobias Niemann

Jörg Behrendt

Matthias Ihrke

... and to You!

göttingen

Documents

ERP Correlates of Identity Negative Priminghecke/archiv/dortmund.pdf · ERP Correlates of Identity Negative Priming ... ”aging effects in selective attention ... P1 P2 AF3 AF4 FC3