Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro

eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleResearch Article: Confirmation, Cognition and Behavior

P3b Does Not Reflect Perceived Contrasts

Yen-Kuang Chen, Tony Cheng and Po-Jang Hsieh
eNeuro 28 March 2022, 9 (2) ENEURO.0387-21.2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0387-21.2022
Yen-Kuang Chen
1Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University, Taipei City 10617, Taiwan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tony Cheng
2Department of Philosophy, National Chengchi University, Taipei City 116302, Taiwan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Po-Jang Hsieh
1Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University, Taipei City 10617, Taiwan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Design of the experiment. A, Each participant completed this experiment in the same sequence. B, In the no-report condition, the green ring was the target. Participants had to report how many times they saw the green ring. In the report condition, participants answered questions with regard to the Gabor grating they saw trial by trial. C, Each trial started with 300 ms of fixation followed by 33 ms of the stimulus, and then 1300 ms of ITI. ITI, Intertrial interval.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Results from both conditions in experiment 1a. The percentage correct (i.e., performance) is plotted on the y-axis. A, The proportion that the participants correctly counted the pop-out times of the green ring. B, Performance on the Gabor grating task in the report condition. The error bar indicates the SE (0.097%). SE, Standard error.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    A, Perceived contrasts in the incidental memory tasks within all conditions. Three levels in Times: 4, 6, 8; two levels in Levels: 0.3, 0.9; two levels in R/NR: No-report, Report. y-axis: contrast of the Gabor grating; x-axis: conditions. B, Comparison between the performances in the no-report (SD = 0.16) and report conditions (SD = 0.17) of each participant. y-axis: contrast of the Gabor grating; x-axis: conditions. SD, Standard deviation.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Results from both conditions in experiment 1b. In all plots, percentage correct (i.e., performance) is plotted on the y-axis. A, Performance on the 45° incline/135° incline/blank task in the first report condition. The error bar indicates the SE (0.27%). B, Performance on the 45° incline/135° incline/blank task in the second report condition. The error bar indicates the SE (0.28%). SE, Standard error.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    A, Perceived contrasts in the incidental memory tasks within all conditions. Three levels in Times: 4, 6, 8; two levels in Levels: 0.3, 0.9; two levels in R1/R2: first Report Condition, second Report Condition. y-axis: contrast of the Gabor grating; x-axis: conditions. B, Comparison between the performances in the first report (SD = 0.26) and the second report (SD = 0.21) conditions of each participant. y-axis: contrast of the Gabor grating; x-axis: conditions. SD, Standard deviation.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Results from all conditions in experiment 2. In all plots, percentage correct (i.e., performance) is plotted on the y-axis. A, Performance on the green ring counting task in the no-report condition. The error bar indicates the SE (0.54%). B, Performance on the 45° incline/135° incline/blank task in the report condition. The error bar indicates the SE (0.19%). C, Performance on the 45° incline/135° incline/blank task in the lower-contrast report condition. The error bar indicates the SE (0.23%). SE, Standard error.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Boxplot with paired data; *p < 0.05. Two levels in Levels: 0.3, 0.9; two levels in Condition: no-report condition, report condition. y-axis: contrast of the Gabor grating; x-axis: conditions.

  • Figure 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 8.

    In both plots, reported contrast of the stimuli is plotted on the y-axis. A, Average perceived contrast after the report condition. The error bar indicates the SE (0.21%). B, Average perceived contrast after the lower-contrast report condition. The error bar indicates the SE (0.16%). SE, Standard error.

  • Figure 9.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 9.

    ERP results for no-report (top row; A), report (middle row; B), and lower-contrast report (bottom row; C) conditions. For all conditions, topographical voltage distributions over a series of time windows and waveforms from a representative (Pz) electrode are plotted. Gray curves reflect the ERP of the critical stimuli, red curves reflect the ERP of blanks. Gray areas represent the ROIs of P3b. In both report and lower-contrast report conditions, clear P3b amplitudes could be observed during the 300- to 400-ms time window while critical stimuli were presented. However, the P3b amplitude vanished in the no-report condition regardless of whether the participants saw the stimuli or not. *p < 0.05. Amplitude scales for the topography maps are as follows: A, ±0.3 μV (P1); ±0.4 μV (N1); ±0.7 μV (P2); ±0.4 μV (P3b); B, ±0.15 μV (P1); ±0.4 μV (N1); ±1.0 μV (P2); ± 0.6 μV (P3b); C, ±0.2 μV (P1); ±0.4 μV (N1); ±1.0 μV (P2); ±0.6 μV (P3b).

  • Figure 10.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 10.

    A–C, Results from the mass univariate analyses for all conditions. A, No-report condition. B, Report condition. C, Lower-contrast report condition. Each individual electrode is plotted as a row on the y-axis, while time (in seconds) is plotted on the x-axis. Only significant t values (5% FDR) are plotted in this figure. FDR, False discovery rate.

  • Figure 11.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 11.

    ERP differences during late time windows revealed by exploratory analyses for all conditions. The topographical differential voltage distributions over a series of time windows starting at 300 ms and ending at 1000 ms are shown for all the conditions. A, No-report condition. B, Report condition. C, Lower-contrast report condition.

  • Figure 12.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 12.

    Source estimations of the differences between stimulus and blank for all conditions across four late time windows. A, No-report condition. B, Report condition. C, Lower-contrast report condition. The ERPs of the blank were served as the baseline, only differences bigger than 2 × 10−10 voltage are plotted on the lateral surface of the Montreal Neurologic Institute brain. Areas plotted by orange color reflect amplitudes of the stimulus bigger than amplitudes of the blank. For those areas colored by purple, the amplitudes of the stimulus were smaller than blank.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Corresponding relation between Weber contrast and contrast in this study

    Contrast levelWeber contrast
    00
    0.10.09
    0.20.23
    0.30.41
    0.40.57
    0.50.71
    0.60.95
    0.71.15
    0.81.35
    0.91.52
    11.87
    • View popup
    Table 2

    Table of the experimental design

    Conditions
    TimesLevelsNo-reportReport
    40.3N = 8
    0.9N = 8
    60.3N = 8
    0.9N = 8
    80.3N = 8
    0.9N = 8
    • A mixed model design for three-factors. Times: pop-out times of green ring; Levels: the contrast levels of the Gabor gratings at the beginning in the incidental memory task; N: numbers of the participants. A total of 48 participants were divided into six groups, which is the combination of the three levels in Times and the two levels in Levels. All participants completed both no-report condition and report condition.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Three-way ANOVA in experiment 1a

    Sourcedf1df2F-ratiop-valueη2
    Times2380.2920.7490.008
    Levels1381.1770.2850.016
    R/NR13845.355.64e-08**0.361
    Times × Levels2380.5960.5560.016
    Times × R/NR2380.3160.7310.008
    Levels × R/NR1380.0820.7760.001
    Times × Levels × R/NR2380.6340.5360.016
    • **p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    2 × 2 mixed ANOVA

    Sourcesdf1df2F-ratiop-valueη2
    Levels1172.4270.1380.068
    R/NR1174.6310.046*0.118
    Levels × R/NR1170.6150.4440.017
    • *p < 0.05.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 9 (2)
eNeuro
Vol. 9, Issue 2
March/April 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
P3b Does Not Reflect Perceived Contrasts
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
P3b Does Not Reflect Perceived Contrasts
Yen-Kuang Chen, Tony Cheng, Po-Jang Hsieh
eNeuro 28 March 2022, 9 (2) ENEURO.0387-21.2022; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0387-21.2022

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
P3b Does Not Reflect Perceived Contrasts
Yen-Kuang Chen, Tony Cheng, Po-Jang Hsieh
eNeuro 28 March 2022, 9 (2) ENEURO.0387-21.2022; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0387-21.2022
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
    • Author Response
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • attention
  • consciousness
  • ERP
  • neural correlate of consciousness
  • no-report paradigm
  • P3b

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Article: Confirmation

  • The Nature and Origin of Synaptic Inputs to Vestibulospinal Neurons in the Larval Zebrafish
  • Amyloid β-Peptide Effects on Glucose Regulation Are Dependent on Apolipoprotein E Genotype
  • Glycolytic System in Axons Supplement Decreased ATP Levels after Axotomy of the Peripheral Nerve
Show more Research Article: Confirmation

Cognition and Behavior

  • Neuronal representation of a working memory-based decision strategy in the motor and prefrontal cortico-basal ganglia loops
  • Strawberry additive increases nicotine vapor sampling and systemic exposure but does not enhance Pavlovian-based nicotine reward in mice
  • Attention Without Constraint: Alpha Lateralization in Uncued Willed Attention
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

  • Cognition and Behavior

  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.