Apparent response incompatibility effects on P3 latency depend on the task.
Ten young women were tested with an ERP paradigm that used the words 'left,' 'right,' 'LEFT,' 'RIGHT' as stimuli. The stimulus sequence was presented as several separate runs with varying response instructions. Subjects were instructed to respond according to the meaning of the stimulus in the (WORD task), to the case in which the stimulus was written (CASE task), or to both the case and meaning of the stimulus (CASE/WORD) task. In each task, half the trials called for a response that was incompatible with the stimulus. For the WORD task, compatible and incompatible trials were presented as separate blocks of trials. For all 3 tasks an additional stimulus sequence was presented in which the words were degraded with superimposed visual random noise. Reaction time (RT) in the CASE/WORD task was more than 100 msec later than in the other tasks. In the WORD and CASE/WORD tasks, RT was delayed more than 100 msec when the response was incompatible with the stimulus. Degrading the stimulus additionally delayed RT by about 100 msec. In the WORD and CASE tasks, error RTs were earlier than correct RTs. P3 latency was measured with a single-trial latency adjustment algorithm. P3 latency was delayed in the CASE/WORD task compared to the other 2 tasks. P3 was delayed by degrading the stimuli. Contrary to some previous reports, P3 was delayed by about 70 msec when incompatible responses were required, but only in the WORD task. Taken together with error and RT data, these P3 latency data are consistent with the notion that the task causes subjects to adopt different strategies and hence different types of processing (i.e., serial vs. parallel). Depending on the type of processing, P3 may appear to be affected by response incompatibility.
D000328:Adult; D001921:Brain / Q000502:physiology; D004193:Discrimination Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D004569:Electroencephalography; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007802:Language; D011930:Reaction Time