Test-Retest Reliability of Event-Related Potentials Across Three Tasks

Pub Date : 2021-08-25 DOI:10.1027/0269-8803/a000286
S. Morand-Beaulieu, Marie-Ange Perrault, M. Lavoie
{"title":"Test-Retest Reliability of Event-Related Potentials Across Three Tasks","authors":"S. Morand-Beaulieu, Marie-Ange Perrault, M. Lavoie","doi":"10.1027/0269-8803/a000286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Event-related potentials (ERPs) constitute a useful and cost-effective method to assess the neural underpinnings of multiple cognitive processes. ERPs have been used to track changes in cognitive processes in longitudinal and clinical studies. However, few studies have assessed their test-retest reliability (i.e., their consistency across time). Therefore, in the current study, we aimed to assess the test-retest reliability of ERPs (P100, N100, P200, N200, P3b, lateralized readiness potentials) across three tasks. In two assessments separated by approximately 4 months, ERPs were recorded in 26 healthy participants, during two oddball tasks (motor and counting) and a stimulus-response compatibility paradigm. Pearson’s correlations and intraclass correlations were used to assess the test-retest reliability of ERPs. Correlations between ERPs elicited by the three tasks were assessed with Pearson’s correlations. Our analyses revealed moderate to very strong test-retest reliability for most ERP components across the three tasks. Test-retest reliability did not differ between the motor and counting oddball tasks. Most ERPs were also correlated across paradigms. Therefore, these results confirm that ERPs have the potential to be reliable markers to serve as robust assessment tools in longitudinal or clinical studies.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0269-8803/a000286","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract. Event-related potentials (ERPs) constitute a useful and cost-effective method to assess the neural underpinnings of multiple cognitive processes. ERPs have been used to track changes in cognitive processes in longitudinal and clinical studies. However, few studies have assessed their test-retest reliability (i.e., their consistency across time). Therefore, in the current study, we aimed to assess the test-retest reliability of ERPs (P100, N100, P200, N200, P3b, lateralized readiness potentials) across three tasks. In two assessments separated by approximately 4 months, ERPs were recorded in 26 healthy participants, during two oddball tasks (motor and counting) and a stimulus-response compatibility paradigm. Pearson’s correlations and intraclass correlations were used to assess the test-retest reliability of ERPs. Correlations between ERPs elicited by the three tasks were assessed with Pearson’s correlations. Our analyses revealed moderate to very strong test-retest reliability for most ERP components across the three tasks. Test-retest reliability did not differ between the motor and counting oddball tasks. Most ERPs were also correlated across paradigms. Therefore, these results confirm that ERPs have the potential to be reliable markers to serve as robust assessment tools in longitudinal or clinical studies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
三项任务中事件相关电位的测试-再测试可靠性
摘要事件相关电位(ERPs)是评估多种认知过程的神经基础的一种有用且具有成本效益的方法。ERPs已被用于跟踪纵向和临床研究中认知过程的变化。然而,很少有研究评估它们的重新测试可靠性(即它们在时间上的一致性)。因此,在当前的研究中,我们旨在评估三项任务中ERP(P100、N100、P200、N200、P3b,侧化准备潜能)的重测可靠性。在相隔约4个月的两次评估中,在两项奇怪的任务(运动和计数)和刺激-反应相容性范式中,26名健康参与者记录了ERP。Pearson相关性和组内相关性用于评估ERPs的重测可靠性。三项任务引发的ERP之间的相关性用Pearson相关性进行评估。我们的分析显示,在这三项任务中,大多数ERP组件的重新测试可靠性中等至非常强。测试-重新测试的可靠性在电机和计数奇数任务之间没有差异。大多数ERP也存在跨范式的相关性。因此,这些结果证实了ERPs有可能成为可靠的标志物,在纵向或临床研究中作为强有力的评估工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1