Stimulus-independent event-related potentials exist and reflect endogenous cognitive processes
the verdict
CONTESTED
contested - evenly split
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
2 sources for · 1 against
While some psychological and neuroimaging studies explicitly identify and locate stimulus-independent endogenous event-related potentials linked to cognitive processes, other methodological critiques argue that event-related potentials cannot be unequivocally tied to specific cognitive models or internal mental operations.
Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) occurring independently from any stimulus are purely endogenous (emitted potentials) and their neural generators can be unequivocally linked with cognitive processes. In the present study, the subjects performed two similar visual counting tasks: a standard two-stimulus oddball, and an omitted-target oddball task, characterized by the physical absence of the target stimulus. Our investigation aimed at localizing the neural sources of the scalp-recorded endogenous/emitted ERPs. To optimize the source localization, the high temporal resolution of electrophysiology was combined with the fine spatial information provided by the simultaneous recording of functional magnetic resonance (fMRI). Both tasks identified two endogenous ERP components in the 300 to 520 ms interval. An earlier component, pP2, showed a bilateral generator in the anterior Insula. A later P3 component (P3b) was generated bilaterally in the temporal-parietal junction, the premotor and motor area and the anterior intraparietal sulcus (this latter one only in the standard oddball). Anticipatory slow waves (beginning 900 to 500 ms pre-stimulus), also of endogenous nature, were produced by the inferior and middle frontal gyrus and the supplementary and cingulate motor areas. Our protocol disentangled pre- from post-stimulus fMRI activations and provided original clues to the psychophysiological interpretation of emitted/endogenous ERPs.
Abstract Most cognitive psychophysiological studies assume (1) that there is a chain of (partially overlapping) cognitive processes (processing stages, mechanisms, operators) leading from stimulus to response, and (2) that components of event-related brain potentials (ERPs) may be regarded as manifestations of these processing stages. What is usually discussed is which particular processing mechanisms are related to some particular component, but not whether such a relationship exists at all. Alternatively, from the point of view of noncognitive (e. g., “naturalistic”) theories of perception ERP components might be conceived of as correlates of extraction of the information from the experimental environment. In a series of experiments, the author attempted to separate these two accounts, i. e., internal variables like mental operations or cognitive parameters versus external variables like information content of stimulation. Whenever this separation could be performed, the latter factor proved to significantly affect ERP amplitudes, whereas the former did not. These data indicate that ERPs cannot be unequivocally linked to processing mechanisms postulated by cognitive models of perception. Therefore, they cannot be regarded as support for these models.
Event-related potentials (ERPs) represent the cortical processing of sensory, motor or cognitive functions invoked by particular events or stimuli. A current theory posits that the catecholaminergic neurotransmitters dopamine (DA) and norepinephrine (NE) modulate a number of endogenous ERPs during various cognitive processes. This manuscript aims to evaluate a leading neurotransmitter hypothesis with a systematic overview and meta-analysis of pharmacologic DA and NE manipulation of specific ERPs in healthy subjects during executive function. Specifically, the frontally-distributed P3a, N2, and Ne/ERN (or error-related negativity) are supposedly modulated primarily by DA, whereas the parietally-distributed P3b is thought to be modulated by NE. Based on preceding research, we refer to this distinction between frontally-distributed DA-sensitive and parietally-distributed NE-sensitive ERP components as the Extended Neurobiological Polich (ENP) hypothesis. Our systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that this distinction is too simplistic and many factors interact with DA and NE to influence these specific ERPs. These may include genetic factors, the specific cognitive processes engaged, or elements of study design, i.e. session or sequence effects or data-analysis strategies.
Everything we examined (3)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.