↓ Skip to main content

Methodological Considerations about the Use of Bimodal Oddball P300 in Psychiatry: Topography and Reference Effect

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Methodological Considerations about the Use of Bimodal Oddball P300 in Psychiatry: Topography and Reference Effect
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01387
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisa Schröder, Hendrik Kajosch, Paul Verbanck, Charles Kornreich, Salvatore Campanella

Abstract

Event-related potentials (ERPs) bimodal oddball task has disclosed increased sensitivity to show P300 modulations to subclinical symptoms. Even if the utility of such a procedure has still to be confirmed at a clinical level, gathering normative values of this new oddball variant may be of the greatest interest. We specifically addressed the challenge of defining the best location for the recording of P3a and P3b components and selecting the best reference to use by investigating the effect of an offline re-reference procedure on recorded bimodal P3a and P3b. Forty young and healthy subjects were submitted to a bimodal (synchronized and always congruent visual and auditory stimuli) three-stimulus oddball task in which 140 frequent bimodal stimuli, 30 deviant "target" stimuli and 30 distractors were presented. Task consisted in clicking as soon as possible on the targets, and not paying attention to frequent stimuli and distractors. This procedure allowed us to record, for each individual, the P3a component, referring to the novelty process related to distractors processing, and the P3b component, linked to the processing of the target stimuli. Results showed that both P3a and P3b showed maximal amplitude in Pz. However, P3a displayed a more central distribution. Nose reference was also shown to give maximal amplitudes compared with average and linked mastoids references. These data were discussed in light of the necessity to develop multi-site recording guidelines to furnish sets of ERPs data comparable across laboratories.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Professor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 5 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 5 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 20%
Psychology 1 7%
Computer Science 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,340,423
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,238
of 29,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,296
of 320,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#384
of 436 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,997 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 436 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.