1

P3b is associated with the detection of novel stimuli unrelated to a task. It was initially confounded with P3a, which is associated with task related stimuli. They were originally thought to be the same ERP, P300, but are now treated as separate.

Do these ERPs exhibit masking in the sense that a novel stimulus which would elicit a P3b may not do so while a P3a is occuring, and thus the subject would fail to notice the stimulus?

Cort Ammon
  • 131
  • 3
  • I think this question is giving too much agency to ERP components - these are measured signatures of brain activity, not "real" physical things that do stuff. I wonder if you are familiar with attentional blink? Besides that, I wonder if the question asked would be any different if you completely omitted all the ERP discussion: isn't it the same as asking "would a subject fail to notice a novel stimulus that co-occurs with a task-related stimulus?" It would likely help to support your question by referencing specific related studies. – Bryan Krause Dec 30 '22 at 19:58
  • 1
    @BryanKrause I'll have to think about the best way to word it along the lines you describe. I think an element of that which gives me pause is that I'm particularly interested in narrowing down the meaning of "co-occurs" temporally. For background (which felt awkward to add tot he question), I'm particularly looking at martial arts and timeframes where one's motions occur. 300ms feels like a really interesting timing given what I've seen in martial arts demonstrations, so I'm curious if the behaviors generating the P3 waves might be an underlying cause for some teachings. – Cort Ammon Dec 31 '22 at 16:33
  • If indeed, we see a general pattern of P3a and P3b masking, that would suggest I'm barking up the right tree. If not, then its back to the drawing board re-considering the possible meanings of "co-occurs" – Cort Ammon Dec 31 '22 at 16:33

0 Answers0