The probability of an event's occurrence affects event-related potentials (ERPs) on electroencephalograms. The relation between probability and potentials has been discussed by using a quantity called surprise that represents the self-information that humans receive from the event. Previous studies have estimated surprise based on the probability distribution in a stationary state. Our hypothesis is that state transitions also play an important role in the estimation of surprise. In this study, we compare the effects of surprise on the ERPs based on two models that generate an event sequence: a model of a stationary state and a model with state transitions. To compare these effects, we generate the event sequences with Markov chains to avoid a situation that the state transition probability converges with the stationary probability by the accumulation of the event observations. Our trial-by-trial model-based analysis showed that the stationary probability better explains the P3b component and the state transition probability better explains the P3a component. The effect on P3a suggests that the internal model, which is constantly and automatically generated by the human brain to estimate the probability distribution of the events, approximates the model with state transitions because Bayesian surprise, which represents the degree of updating of the internal model, is highly reflected in P3a. The global effect reflected in P3b, however, may not be related to the internal model because P3b depends on the stationary probability distribution. The results suggest that an internal model can represent state transitions and the global effect is generated by a different mechanism than the one for forming the internal model.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 April 2021.
All research outputs
#16,616,238
of 25,235,161 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,157
of 7,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,768
of 318,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#147
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,235,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,647 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 318,293 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
