@brainpilot/skills 0.0.6

package/skills/05_EEG_ERP/erp-analysis/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
+---
+name: "erp-analysis"
+description: "Domain-validated pipeline and parameter guidance for event-related potential analysis, from preprocessing through statistical testing"
+domain: "cognitive-neuroscience"
+version: "1.0.0"
+papers:
+ - "Luck, 2014"
+ - "Luck & Gaspelin, 2017"
+ - "Keil et al., 2014"
+ - "Kappenman & Luck, 2010"
+dependencies:
+ required:
+ - research-literacy
+review_status: "ai-generated"
+---
+
+# ERP Data Analysis
+
+## Purpose
+
+This skill encodes expert methodological knowledge for analyzing event-related potentials (ERPs) from EEG data. It provides domain-specific parameter recommendations, processing order guidance, component identification criteria, and statistical analysis strategies that a general-purpose programmer or data scientist would not know without specialized training.
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+- Designing an ERP preprocessing pipeline for a new study
+- Choosing filter settings, reference schemes, or artifact rejection criteria
+- Identifying which ERP component to measure and how to define its time window and ROI
+- Selecting appropriate amplitude measures (mean, peak, area) for a given component
+- Choosing between traditional ANOVA-based analysis and mass univariate approaches
+- Reviewing or troubleshooting an existing ERP analysis pipeline
+
+## Research Planning Protocol
+
+Before executing the domain-specific steps below, you MUST:
+
+1. **State the research question** — What specific question is this ERP analysis addressing?
+2. **Justify the method choice** — Why ERP (not fMRI, behavior-only, etc.)? What alternatives were considered?
+3. **Declare expected outcomes** — Which component(s) do you expect to differ, in what direction?
+4. **Note assumptions and limitations** — What does this method assume? Where could it mislead?
+5. **Present the plan to the user and WAIT for confirmation** before proceeding.
+
+For detailed methodology guidance, see the `research-literacy` skill.
+
+
+## ⚠️ Verification Notice
+
+This skill was generated by AI from academic literature. All parameters, thresholds, and citations require independent verification before use in research. If you find errors, please [open an issue](https://github.com/HaoxuanLiTHUAI/awesome_cognitive_and_neuroscience_skills/issues).
+
+## Preprocessing Pipeline Overview
+
+The standard ERP preprocessing pipeline involves 7 ordered steps. Processing order matters and can influence results (the "multiverse" problem; see Lonedo et al., 2020).
+
+### Recommended Default Order
+
+1. **Import and inspect raw data** -- Check for gross artifacts, disconnected electrodes
+2. **Filter** -- Apply bandpass and optional notch filter
+3. **Re-reference** -- Choose and apply reference scheme
+4. **Bad channel identification and interpolation** -- Identify and interpolate noisy channels
+5. **ICA-based artifact correction** -- Remove eye blinks, saccades, cardiac artifacts
+6. **Epoching and baseline correction** -- Segment continuous data around events
+7. **Epoch rejection** -- Remove remaining bad epochs by amplitude threshold
+
+> **Multiverse note**: Steps 2-5 interact. Filtering before ICA improves decomposition quality (Winkler et al., 2015). Some researchers re-reference after ICA. Document your choices and consider running key alternatives to assess robustness.
+
+For detailed parameters at each step, see `references/preprocessing-pipeline.md`.
+
+### Key Parameter Defaults
+
+| Step | Parameter | Default | Source |
+|------|-----------|---------|--------|
+| Filter | High-pass | **0.1 Hz** | Luck, 2014, Ch. 5; Tanner et al., 2015 |
+| Filter | Low-pass | **30 Hz** | Luck, 2014, Ch. 5 |
+| Filter | Filter type | FIR, zero-phase | Widmann et al., 2015 |
+| Re-reference | Scheme | Average reference | Luck, 2014, Ch. 5; Keil et al., 2014 |
+| Artifact rejection | Threshold | **+/-100 uV** | Luck, 2014 |
+| Bad channels | Max proportion | **< 10%** of total channels | Keil et al., 2014 |
+| Epoching | Window | **-200 ms to 800 ms** | Luck, 2014, Ch. 5 |
+| Baseline | Window | **-200 ms to 0 ms** | Luck, 2014, Ch. 5 |
+
+## ERP Component Identification
+
+To measure an ERP component correctly, you need three pieces of information:
+
+1. **Latency range** -- The expected time window for the component
+2. **Scalp distribution** -- Where on the scalp the component is maximal
+3. **Functional context** -- What experimental manipulation elicits the component
+
+### Component Selection Decision Logic
+
+1. **Identify your cognitive process of interest** (e.g., semantic processing, error monitoring)
+2. **Look up the canonical component** in `references/erp-components.md`
+3. **Verify the component matches your paradigm** -- The same voltage deflection in a different paradigm may reflect a different component (Luck, 2014, Ch. 2)
+4. **Use the recommended ROI and time window** as your starting point, then verify against your own grand average waveform
+5. **For disputed components**, read the Interpretation Notes in `references/erp-components.md` before committing to a theoretical interpretation
+
+### Component Domains at a Glance
+
+| Domain | Key Components | Reference File Section |
+|--------|---------------|----------------------|
+| Visual perception | P1, N1, N170, N2pc | `erp-components.md` Section 1 |
+| Language | N400, P600/LPC, ELAN, LAN | `erp-components.md` Section 2 |
+| Executive control | ERN/Ne, Pe, N2, CNV | `erp-components.md` Section 3 |
+| Memory | FN400, parietal old/new, Dm | `erp-components.md` Section 4 |
+
+## Statistical Analysis Strategy
+
+### Amplitude Measurement
+
+Choose your measurement approach based on the component:
+
+| Measure | Best For | Avoid When | Source |
+|---------|----------|------------|--------|
+| **Mean amplitude** | Broad components (N400, P300, LPC) | Component is sharp and brief | Luck, 2014, Ch. 9 |
+| **Peak amplitude** | Sharp, well-defined peaks (P1, N1) | Component has no clear peak or has multiple peaks | Luck, 2014, Ch. 9 |
+| **Peak latency** | Measuring processing speed | Component lacks a clear peak | Luck, 2014, Ch. 9 |
+| **50% fractional area latency** | Latency with unequal amplitudes across conditions | Rarely inappropriate; preferred over peak latency | Luck, 2014, Ch. 9; Kiesel et al., 2008 |
+| **Signed/unsigned area** | Components spanning positive and negative voltages | Simple, unipolar components | Luck, 2014, Ch. 9 |
+
+### Time Window and ROI Selection
+
+1. **A priori selection** (preferred): Choose time window and electrodes based on prior literature before looking at your data (Luck & Gaspelin, 2017)
+2. **Collapsed localizer**: Average across all conditions to identify the window/ROI, then test differences between conditions within that window (Luck & Gaspelin, 2017)
+3. **Data-driven**: Use mass univariate approach to avoid arbitrary window selection (see below)
+
+> **Critical**: Never select a time window or ROI by looking at the difference between conditions. This inflates Type I error (Luck & Gaspelin, 2017).
+
+### Choosing a Statistical Framework
+
+```
+Is your hypothesis about a specific, well-characterized component?
+ |
+ +-- YES --> Do you have a priori time window and ROI?
+ | |
+ | +-- YES --> Traditional ANOVA on mean/peak amplitude
+ | |
+ | +-- NO --> Use collapsed localizer, then ANOVA
+ |
+ +-- NO --> Is your effect potentially distributed across time/space?
+ |
+ +-- YES --> Cluster-based permutation test (Maris & Oostenveld, 2007)
+ |
+ +-- NO --> Mass univariate with FDR correction (Groppe et al., 2011)
+```
+
+For detailed statistical method descriptions, see `references/statistical-approaches.md`.
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+1. **Double-dipping**: Selecting time windows or electrodes based on the effect of interest, then testing that same effect in the selected window (Kriegeskorte et al., 2009)
+2. **Excessive filtering**: High-pass cutoffs above **0.1 Hz** can distort slow components like the P300, N400, and LPC (Tanner et al., 2015; Widmann & Schroger, 2012)
+3. **Confounding component overlap**: Apparent differences in one component may be driven by overlap from an adjacent component; consider difference waves and component-specific analyses (Luck, 2014, Ch. 2)
+4. **Ignoring trial count imbalance**: Unequal trial counts across conditions produce differential noise levels, biasing peak amplitude and latency measures (Luck, 2014, Ch. 9)
+5. **Cluster-based tests for latency**: Cluster permutation tests control family-wise error but cannot localize effects to specific time points or channels (Maris & Oostenveld, 2007)
+6. **Reporting only p-values**: Always report effect sizes (partial eta-squared for ANOVA, Cohen's d for t-tests) alongside p-values (Keil et al., 2014)
+
+## Minimum Reporting Checklist
+
+Based on Keil et al. (2014) and Luck (2014):
+
+- [ ] Number of accepted trials per condition (minimum **30** per condition recommended; Boudewyn et al., 2018)
+- [ ] Filter settings (type, cutoff frequencies, roll-off)
+- [ ] Reference scheme
+- [ ] Artifact rejection method and criteria (ICA, threshold, proportion rejected)
+- [ ] Number and identity of interpolated channels
+- [ ] Epoch window and baseline correction window
+- [ ] Component time window and ROI electrodes (with justification)
+- [ ] Amplitude measure used (mean, peak, area)
+- [ ] Statistical test, correction method, and effect sizes
+
+## References
+
+- Boudewyn, M. A., Luck, S. J., Farrens, J. L., & Kappenman, E. S. (2018). How many trials does it take to get a significant ERP effect? *Psychophysiology*, 55(6), e13049.
+- Groppe, D. M., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2011). Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/fields I. *Psychophysiology*, 48(12), 1711-1725.
+- Keil, A., et al. (2014). Committee report: Publication guidelines and recommendations for studies using EEG and MEG. *Psychophysiology*, 51(1), 1-21.
+- Kiesel, A., Miller, J., Jolicoeur, P., & Brisson, B. (2008). Measurement of ERP latency differences. *Psychophysiology*, 45(4), 517-523.
+- Kriegeskorte, N., Simmons, W. K., Bellgowan, P. S., & Baker, C. I. (2009). Circular analysis in systems neuroscience. *Nature Neuroscience*, 12(5), 535-540.
+- Lonedo, A., et al. (2020). The multiverse of ERP analysis pipelines. *NeuroImage*, 209, 116465.
+- Luck, S. J. (2014). *An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique* (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
+- Luck, S. J., & Gaspelin, N. (2017). How to get statistically significant effects in any ERP experiment (and why you shouldn't). *Psychophysiology*, 54(1), 146-157.
+- Maris, E., & Oostenveld, R. (2007). Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. *Journal of Neuroscience Methods*, 164(1), 177-190.
+- Tanner, D., Morgan-Short, K., & Luck, S. J. (2015). How inappropriate high-pass filters can produce artifactual effects. *Psychophysiology*, 52(8), 997-1009.
+- Widmann, A., Schroger, E., & Maess, B. (2015). Digital filter design for electrophysiological data. *Journal of Neuroscience Methods*, 250, 34-46.
+- Winkler, I., Debener, S., Muller, K. R., & Tangermann, M. (2015). On the influence of high-pass filtering on ICA-based artifact reduction in EEG-ERP. *Proceedings of the IEEE EMBC*, 4101-4105.
+
+See `references/` for detailed parameter tables, component database, and statistical method descriptions.

package/skills/05_EEG_ERP/erp-analysis/references/erp-components.md

@@ -0,0 +1,447 @@
+# ERP Component Database
+
+A comprehensive reference of classic ERP components organized by cognitive domain. Each entry includes latency, scalp distribution, functional significance, recommended ROI, and key references. Components with disputed functional interpretations include an **Interpretation Notes** subsection.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Visual Perception Components
+
+### P1 (Visual P1)
+
+| Property | Value | Source |
+|----------|-------|--------|
+| **Latency** | **80-130 ms** post-stimulus | Luck, 2014, Ch. 3 |
+| **Polarity** | Positive | Luck, 2014, Ch. 3 |
+| **Scalp distribution** | Lateral occipital (O1, O2, PO7, PO8) | Luck, 2014, Ch. 3; Di Russo et al., 2002 |
+| **Generator** | Extrastriate visual cortex (V2/V3) | Di Russo et al., 2002 |
+| **Functional significance** | Early visual processing; modulated by spatial attention (larger for attended locations) | Hillyard et al., 1998 |
+| **Recommended ROI** | O1, O2, PO7, PO8 | Luck, 2014, Ch. 3 |
+| **Recommended time window** | **80-130 ms** | Luck, 2014, Ch. 3 |
+| **Measurement** | Peak amplitude or mean amplitude in window | Luck, 2014, Ch. 9 |
+
+**Key references**: Di Russo, F., Martinez, A., Sereno, M. I., Pitzalis, S., & Hillyard, S. A. (2002). Cortical sources of the early components of the visual evoked potential. *Human Brain Mapping*, 15(2), 95-111.
+
+---
+
+### N1 (Visual N1)
+
+| Property | Value | Source |
+|----------|-------|--------|
+| **Latency** | **150-200 ms** post-stimulus | Luck, 2014, Ch. 3 |
+| **Polarity** | Negative | Luck, 2014, Ch. 3 |
+| **Scalp distribution** | Posterior (broad): anterior N1 (FCz), posterior N1 (PO7, PO8) -- multiple subcomponents | Luck, 2005 |
+| **Generator** | Multiple generators: lateral occipital, parietal, frontal | Luck, 2005 |
+| **Functional significance** | Discriminative processing; enhanced by attention; reflects the initial engagement of the discrimination process | Vogel & Luck, 2000 |
+| **Recommended ROI** | PO7, PO8 (posterior); FCz (anterior) -- depends on the subcomponent | Luck, 2014, Ch. 3 |
+| **Recommended time window** | **150-200 ms** (posterior); **100-150 ms** (anterior subcomponent) | Luck, 2005 |
+| **Measurement** | Peak amplitude | Luck, 2014, Ch. 9 |
+
+**Key references**: Vogel, E. K., & Luck, S. J. (2000). The visual N1 component as an index of a discrimination process. *Psychophysiology*, 37(2), 190-203.
+
+---
+
+### N170
+
+| Property | Value | Source |
+|----------|-------|--------|
+| **Latency** | **140-200 ms** (peak ~**170 ms**) | Bentin et al., 1996; Rossion & Jacques, 2008 |
+| **Polarity** | Negative | Bentin et al., 1996 |
+| **Scalp distribution** | Bilateral occipitotemporal (P7/P8, PO7/PO8); often right-lateralized for faces | Bentin et al., 1996 |
+| **Generator** | Fusiform gyrus (FFA) and superior temporal sulcus | Rossion & Jacques, 2008 |
+| **Functional significance** | Face-specific (or expertise-specific) structural encoding; larger for faces than other objects | Bentin et al., 1996 |
+| **Recommended ROI** | P7, P8, PO7, PO8 | Rossion & Jacques, 2008 |
+| **Recommended time window** | **140-200 ms** | Bentin et al., 1996 |
+| **Measurement** | Peak amplitude and peak latency | Rossion & Jacques, 2008 |
+
+#### Interpretation Notes
+
+The N170 was originally proposed as a face-specific component (Bentin et al., 1996). However, subsequent research has shown:
+
+- **Face specificity view**: N170 is larger for faces than non-face objects, reflecting a dedicated face processing mechanism (Bentin et al., 1996; Rossion & Jacques, 2008)
+- **Expertise view**: N170 is equally enhanced for any object category for which the viewer has perceptual expertise (e.g., cars for car experts, birds for birders), suggesting it reflects expert-level within-category individuation rather than face-specific processing (Gauthier et al., 2003; Tanaka & Curran, 2001)
+- **Current consensus**: The N170 likely reflects structural encoding processes that are preferentially but not exclusively recruited by faces (Rossion & Jacques, 2008)
+
+**Key references**: Bentin, S., Allison, T., Puce, A., Perez, E., & McCarthy, G. (1996). Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans. *Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience*, 8(6), 551-565.
+
+---
+
+### P3 / P300
+
+| Property | Value | Source |
+|----------|-------|--------|
+| **Latency** | **300-600 ms** (P3b); **250-350 ms** (P3a) | Luck, 2014, Ch. 3; Polich, 2007 |
+| **Polarity** | Positive | Luck, 2014, Ch. 3 |
+| **Scalp distribution** | P3b: centroparietal (Pz maximal); P3a: frontocentral (Fz/Cz) | Polich, 2007 |
+| **Generator** | Multiple: temporoparietal junction, prefrontal (P3a), temporal-parietal (P3b) | Polich, 2007 |
+| **Functional significance** | P3b: context updating in working memory (oddball target); P3a: involuntary attention to novel/deviant stimuli | Polich, 2007; Donchin & Coles, 1988 |
+| **Recommended ROI** | P3b: Pz, P1, P2, CPz; P3a: Fz, FCz, Cz | Polich, 2007 |
+| **Recommended time window** | P3b: **300-600 ms**; P3a: **250-350 ms** | Polich, 2007 |
+| **Measurement** | Mean amplitude (preferred over peak for its broad morphology) | Luck, 2014, Ch. 9 |
+
+#### Interpretation Notes
+
+The P300 is one of the most studied ERP components, but its functional interpretation remains debated:
+
+- **Context updating theory** (dominant): P300 reflects the updating of mental models in working memory when unexpected or task-relevant stimuli are detected (Donchin & Coles, 1988; Polich, 2007)
+- **Decision confidence**: P3b amplitude may reflect the accumulated evidence for a perceptual decision, linking it to sequential sampling models (Twomey et al., 2015; O'Connell et al., 2012)
+- **Inhibition account**: P3b may partly reflect inhibitory processing, related to the suppression of ongoing activity to allow processing of the target (Huster et al., 2013)
+- **Overlap with other components**: The broad P300 time window often overlaps with the LPC, slow waves, and other components, making isolation difficult (Luck, 2014, Ch. 3)
+
+**Key references**: Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. *Clinical Neurophysiology*, 118(10), 2128-2148.
+
+---
+
+### N2pc
+
+| Property | Value | Source |
+|----------|-------|--------|
+| **Latency** | **200-300 ms** post-stimulus | Luck & Hillyard, 1994; Eimer, 1996 |
+| **Polarity** | Negative (contralateral to attended item) | Luck & Hillyard, 1994 |
+| **Scalp distribution** | Posterior lateral (PO7/PO8 contralateral to target) -- measured as contralateral minus ipsilateral difference | Luck, 2014, Ch. 3 |
+| **Generator** | Ventral visual cortex, area V4/TEO | Hopf et al., 2000 |
+| **Functional significance** | Attentional selection of a target among distractors; reflects the focusing of attention to the target location | Luck & Hillyard, 1994; Eimer, 1996 |
+| **Recommended ROI** | PO7/PO8 (compute contralateral-minus-ipsilateral difference wave) | Luck, 2014, Ch. 3 |
+| **Recommended time window** | **200-300 ms** | Luck, 2014, Ch. 3 |
+| **Measurement** | Mean amplitude of contralateral-minus-ipsilateral difference wave | Luck, 2014, Ch. 9 |
+
+**Key references**: Luck, S. J., & Hillyard, S. A. (1994). Spatial filtering during visual search: Evidence from human electrophysiology. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: HPP*, 20(5), 1000-1014.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Language Components
+
+### N400
+
+| Property | Value | Source |
+|----------|-------|--------|
+| **Latency** | **300-500 ms** | Kutas & Hillyard, 1980; Kutas & Federmeier, 2011 |
+| **Polarity** | Negative | Kutas & Hillyard, 1980 |
+| **Scalp distribution** | Centroparietal, right-lateralized tendency; maximum at **Cz, CPz, Pz** | Kutas & Federmeier, 2011 |
+| **Generator** | Multiple: superior temporal cortex, anterior medial temporal lobe, prefrontal cortex | Lau et al., 2008 |
+| **Functional significance** | Semantic processing; amplitude inversely related to cloze probability / semantic predictability | Kutas & Federmeier, 2011 |
+| **Recommended ROI** | Cz, CPz, Pz, C3, C4, CP3, CP4, P3, P4 (centroparietal cluster) | Kutas & Federmeier, 2011 |
+| **Recommended time window** | **300-500 ms** | Kutas & Federmeier, 2011 |
+| **Measurement** | Mean amplitude (the component is broad and often lacks a clear peak) | Luck, 2014, Ch. 9 |
+
+#### Interpretation Notes
+
+The N400 is one of the most robust and widely studied language-related ERP components, but its precise functional interpretation is actively debated:
+
+- **Lexical access / integration view** (classic): The N400 reflects the difficulty of integrating a word's meaning into the preceding context. Larger N400 = harder integration (Kutas & Hillyard, 1980; Hagoort, 2003)
+- **Prediction / pre-activation view** (currently influential): The N400 reflects the degree to which a word's semantic features were pre-activated by the context. Reduced N400 = the word was already predicted (Kutas & Federmeier, 2011; Federmeier, 2007)
+- **Retrieval view**: The N400 reflects the ease of retrieving information from semantic memory, modulated by the match between retrieved and presented information (Lau et al., 2008; Brouwer et al., 2017)
+- **Key distinction**: The prediction view emphasizes *facilitatory pre-activation*, while the integration view emphasizes *post-access combinatorial processing*. These accounts make different predictions for unexpected-but-plausible words and for words in low-constraint contexts (Federmeier, 2007)
+- **Non-linguistic N400**: The N400 is also elicited by non-linguistic stimuli (pictures, environmental sounds, gestures) when they violate semantic expectations, suggesting it reflects a domain-general semantic access process (Kutas & Federmeier, 2011)
+
+**Key references**: Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). *Annual Review of Psychology*, 62, 621-647.
+
+---
+
+### P600 / LPC (Late Positive Complex)
+
+| Property | Value | Source |
+|----------|-------|--------|
+| **Latency** | **500-800 ms** (can extend to **1000 ms**) | Osterhout & Holcomb, 1992; Kuperberg, 2007 |
+| **Polarity** | Positive | Osterhout & Holcomb, 1992 |
+| **Scalp distribution** | Centroparietal (Pz, CPz); sometimes more posterior | Kuperberg, 2007 |
+| **Generator** | Not well-localized; likely multiple generators including temporal and parietal regions | Kuperberg, 2007 |
+| **Functional significance** | Syntactic reanalysis / repair; also linked to conflict monitoring, reprocessing, and continued analysis | Osterhout & Holcomb, 1992; Kuperberg, 2007 |
+| **Recommended ROI** | Pz, CPz, P3, P4, CP3, CP4 | Kuperberg, 2007 |
+| **Recommended time window** | **500-800 ms** (or **600-900 ms** depending on paradigm) | Osterhout & Holcomb, 1992 |
+| **Measurement** | Mean amplitude | Luck, 2014, Ch. 9 |
+
+#### Interpretation Notes
+
+The P600/LPC is among the most contentious ERP components in the language domain:
+
+- **Syntactic reanalysis view** (classic): The P600 reflects syntactic parsing difficulty, reanalysis, or repair processes triggered by syntactic violations or garden-path sentences (Osterhout & Holcomb, 1992; Hagoort et al., 1993)
+- **Conflict/monitoring view**: The P600 may reflect a more general conflict-monitoring or error-detection process that is triggered whenever the language system detects an unexpected or implausible combination (Kuperberg, 2007; van de Meerendonk et al., 2010)
+- **P600 to semantic anomalies**: Some semantic violations (e.g., role-reversed sentences like "The meal was cooking the chef") elicit a P600 without an N400, challenging the strict syntax-only interpretation (Kuperberg, 2007; Kim & Osterhout, 2005)
+- **LPC vs P600 distinction**: In the memory literature, a similar centroparietal positivity in the same time window is called the LPC (Late Positive Complex) and is associated with recollection. Whether the language P600 and memory LPC are the same or different components is debated (Brouwer et al., 2017; Sassenhagen & Fiebach, 2019)
+- **Current view**: The P600 likely reflects continued, effortful processing -- whether syntactic reanalysis, thematic revision, or plausibility checking -- rather than a process strictly tied to syntax (Brouwer et al., 2017)
+
+**Key references**: Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. *Brain Research*, 1146, 23-49.
+
+---
+
+### ELAN (Early Left Anterior Negativity)
+
+| Property | Value | Source |
+|----------|-------|--------|
+| **Latency** | **100-300 ms** (often **150-200 ms**) | Friederici, 2002 |
+| **Polarity** | Negative | Friederici, 2002 |
+| **Scalp distribution** | Left anterior (F7, F3, FT7) | Friederici, 2002 |
+| **Generator** | Left inferior frontal cortex (Broca's area / BA 44) | Friederici, 2002 |
+| **Functional significance** | Early automatic detection of phrase structure violations (word category errors) | Friederici, 2002 |
+| **Recommended ROI** | F7, F3, FT7, FC3 (left anterior cluster) | Friederici, 2002 |
+| **Recommended time window** | **100-300 ms** | Friederici, 2002 |
+| **Measurement** | Mean amplitude | Friederici, 2002 |
+
+#### Interpretation Notes
+
+The ELAN is one of the more controversial ERP components in language processing:
+
+- **Syntax-first view**: The ELAN reflects an early, automatic, modular stage of syntactic processing that detects word category violations before semantic processing begins (Friederici, 2002)
+- **Skeptical view**: Some researchers question whether the ELAN is a genuine ERP component or an artifact of stimulus differences (acoustic/orthographic confounds between syntactically legal and illegal continuations; Steinhauer & Drury, 2012)
+- **Replication concerns**: The ELAN has proven difficult to replicate in many labs, and several high-powered studies have failed to find it (Steinhauer & Drury, 2012)
+- **Context**: Some researchers have moved away from the ELAN as a reliable marker and instead focus on the N400 and P600 as more robust indices of language processing (Bornkessel-Schlesewsky & Schlesewsky, 2019)
+
+**Key references**: Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, 6(2), 78-84.
+
+---
+
+### LAN (Left Anterior Negativity)
+
+| Property | Value | Source |
+|----------|-------|--------|
+| **Latency** | **300-500 ms** | Friederici, 2002; Molinaro et al., 2011 |
+| **Polarity** | Negative | Friederici, 2002 |
+| **Scalp distribution** | Left anterior (F3, F7, FC3, FT7) | Molinaro et al., 2011 |
+| **Generator** | Left inferior frontal cortex | Friederici, 2002 |
+| **Functional significance** | Morphosyntactic processing, especially agreement violations (subject-verb agreement, gender agreement) | Molinaro et al., 2011 |
+| **Recommended ROI** | F3, F7, FC3, FT7 (left anterior) | Molinaro et al., 2011 |
+| **Recommended time window** | **300-500 ms** | Molinaro et al., 2011 |
+| **Measurement** | Mean amplitude (compare left anterior to right anterior for laterality) | Molinaro et al., 2011 |
+
+#### Interpretation Notes
+
+- **Classic view**: The LAN is a distinct component reflecting morphosyntactic agreement processing, separable from the N400 (Friederici, 2002)
+- **Skeptical view**: The LAN may simply be an N400 effect with a slightly left-anterior scalp distribution, rather than a distinct component (Tanner & Van Hell, 2014)
+- **Individual differences**: Tanner & Van Hell (2014) showed that the "LAN" in grand averages can arise from averaging N400-dominant and P600-dominant individual response patterns, neither of which shows a LAN individually
+- **Replication**: Like the ELAN, the LAN has proven difficult to replicate reliably across labs (Tanner, 2015)
+
+**Key references**: Molinaro, N., Barber, H. A., & Carreiras, M. (2011). Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. *Cortex*, 47(8), 908-930.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Executive Control Components
+
+### ERN / Ne (Error-Related Negativity)
+
+| Property | Value | Source |
+|----------|-------|--------|
+| **Latency** | **0-100 ms** post-response (peaks ~**50-80 ms** after error) | Gehring et al., 1993; Falkenstein et al., 1991 |
+| **Polarity** | Negative | Gehring et al., 1993 |
+| **Scalp distribution** | Frontocentral (FCz, Cz) | Gehring et al., 1993 |
+| **Generator** | Anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), supplementary motor area | Dehaene et al., 1994 |
+| **Functional significance** | Error detection / performance monitoring; larger for errors than correct responses | Gehring et al., 1993 |
+| **Recommended ROI** | FCz, Cz, FC1, FC2 | Gehring et al., 1993 |
+| **Recommended time window** | **0-100 ms** post-response (response-locked) | Gehring et al., 1993 |
+| **Measurement** | Peak amplitude or mean amplitude; always **response-locked** epoching | Luck, 2014, Ch. 3 |
+
+#### Interpretation Notes
+
+- **Mismatch/comparison view**: The ERN reflects a comparison between the intended response and the actual response, detecting a mismatch (Gehring et al., 1993; Coles et al., 2001)
+- **Reinforcement learning view**: The ERN is generated by a phasic decrease in dopaminergic input to the ACC when outcomes are worse than expected (Holroyd & Coles, 2002)
+- **Conflict monitoring view**: The ERN reflects response conflict (co-activation of correct and incorrect responses) rather than explicit error detection (Yeung et al., 2004)
+- **Clinical relevance**: Enhanced ERN is observed in anxiety disorders and OCD, suggesting it may index an overactive error-monitoring system (Endrass & Ullsperger, 2014)
+
+**Key references**: Gehring, W. J., Goss, B., Coles, M. G. H., Meyer, D. E., & Donchin, E. (1993). A neural system for error detection and compensation. *Psychological Science*, 4(6), 385-390.
+
+---
+
+### Pe (Error Positivity)
+
+| Property | Value | Source |
+|----------|-------|--------|
+| **Latency** | **200-400 ms** post-response (follows the ERN) | Overbeek et al., 2005; Nieuwenhuis et al., 2001 |
+| **Polarity** | Positive | Overbeek et al., 2005 |
+| **Scalp distribution** | Centroparietal (Cz, CPz, Pz) | Overbeek et al., 2005 |
+| **Generator** | Anterior cingulate cortex (rostral ACC), insular cortex | Overbeek et al., 2005 |
+| **Functional significance** | Conscious error awareness / error significance evaluation | Nieuwenhuis et al., 2001 |
+| **Recommended ROI** | Cz, CPz, Pz | Overbeek et al., 2005 |
+| **Recommended time window** | **200-400 ms** post-response (response-locked) | Overbeek et al., 2005 |
+| **Measurement** | Mean amplitude; response-locked epochs | Overbeek et al., 2005 |
+
+**Key references**: Overbeek, T. J. M., Nieuwenhuis, S., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2005). Dissociable components of error processing. *Journal of Psychophysiology*, 19(4), 319-329.
+
+---
+
+### N2 (Frontal N2 / Conflict N2)
+
+| Property | Value | Source |
+|----------|-------|--------|
+| **Latency** | **200-350 ms** | Folstein & Van Petten, 2008 |
+| **Polarity** | Negative | Folstein & Van Petten, 2008 |
+| **Scalp distribution** | Frontocentral (Fz, FCz, Cz) | Folstein & Van Petten, 2008 |
+| **Generator** | Anterior cingulate cortex | Nieuwenhuis et al., 2003 |
+| **Functional significance** | Conflict monitoring / cognitive control; enhanced on incongruent trials (Flanker, Go/No-Go); distinct from the posterior N2 (mismatch) | Folstein & Van Petten, 2008 |
+| **Recommended ROI** | Fz, FCz, Cz | Folstein & Van Petten, 2008 |
+| **Recommended time window** | **200-350 ms** | Folstein & Van Petten, 2008 |
+| **Measurement** | Mean amplitude or peak amplitude | Folstein & Van Petten, 2008 |
+
+**Note**: The "N2" label is used for several functionally distinct components. The **frontal N2** (conflict/control) should not be confused with the **posterior N2** (mismatch negativity, visual novelty) or the **N2pc** (attentional selection). Always specify which N2 you are studying (Folstein & Van Petten, 2008).
+
+**Key references**: Folstein, J. R., & Van Petten, C. (2008). Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: A review. *Psychophysiology*, 45(1), 152-170.
+
+---
+
+### CNV (Contingent Negative Variation)
+
+| Property | Value | Source |
+|----------|-------|--------|
+| **Latency** | **Sustained**, from warning stimulus to imperative stimulus (typically **1000-2000 ms** interval) | Walter et al., 1964; Luck, 2014, Ch. 3 |
+| **Polarity** | Negative (sustained slow wave) | Walter et al., 1964 |
+| **Scalp distribution** | Central-frontocentral (Cz, FCz); early CNV: frontal; late CNV: central | Brunia et al., 2012 |
+| **Generator** | Supplementary motor area, premotor cortex, prefrontal cortex | Brunia et al., 2012 |
+| **Functional significance** | Anticipatory preparation: early CNV = expectancy/orienting; late CNV = motor preparation | Brunia et al., 2012 |
+| **Recommended ROI** | Cz, FCz (late CNV); Fz (early CNV) | Brunia et al., 2012 |
+| **Recommended time window** | Late CNV: last **500 ms** before imperative stimulus; early CNV: **500-1000 ms** after warning stimulus | Brunia et al., 2012 |
+| **Measurement** | Mean amplitude in the specified window | Luck, 2014, Ch. 9 |
+
+**Important**: The CNV is a slow potential. High-pass filter cutoffs above **0.05 Hz** can substantially attenuate or eliminate the CNV. Use **0.01 Hz** or lower high-pass cutoff when studying this component (Tanner et al., 2015).
+
+**Key references**: Brunia, C. H. M., van Boxtel, G. J. M., & Bocker, K. B. E. (2012). Negative slow waves as indices of anticipation. In S. J. Luck & E. S. Kappenman (Eds.), *The Oxford Handbook of Event-Related Potential Components*. Oxford University Press.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Memory Components
+
+### FN400 (Frontal Old/New Effect)
+
+| Property | Value | Source |
+|----------|-------|--------|
+| **Latency** | **300-500 ms** | Curran, 2000; Rugg & Curran, 2007 |
+| **Polarity** | More positive for old (studied) items than new items | Curran, 2000 |
+| **Scalp distribution** | Frontal-central (Fz, FCz, F3, F4) | Curran, 2000 |
+| **Generator** | Perirhinal cortex (proposed) | Rugg & Curran, 2007 |
+| **Functional significance** | Familiarity-based recognition; graded with familiarity strength | Curran, 2000 |
+| **Recommended ROI** | Fz, F3, F4, FCz, FC3, FC4 (frontal cluster) | Curran, 2000 |
+| **Recommended time window** | **300-500 ms** | Curran, 2000 |
+| **Measurement** | Mean amplitude (old minus new difference) | Rugg & Curran, 2007 |
+
+#### Interpretation Notes
+
+- **Familiarity view** (dominant): The FN400 is an index of familiarity-based recognition memory, distinct from recollection-related parietal old/new effects (Curran, 2000; Rugg & Curran, 2007)
+- **Conceptual priming view**: The FN400 may actually reflect conceptual implicit memory (priming) rather than explicit familiarity, since it is sensitive to conceptual manipulations but not to study-test modality changes (Paller et al., 2007; Voss & Paller, 2006)
+- **N400 identity view**: Some researchers argue the FN400 is simply an N400 modulated by repetition, not a distinct memory component (Voss & Federmeier, 2011)
+- **Practical implication**: When interpreting frontal old/new effects, consider whether conceptual fluency / priming could account for the observed pattern before attributing it to familiarity
+
+**Key references**: Curran, T. (2000). Brain potentials of recollection and familiarity. *Memory & Cognition*, 28(6), 923-938.
+
+---
+
+### Parietal Old/New Effect (LPC / Recollection Effect)
+
+| Property | Value | Source |
+|----------|-------|--------|
+| **Latency** | **500-800 ms** | Rugg & Curran, 2007; Wilding & Ranganath, 2012 |
+| **Polarity** | More positive for old (remembered) items than new items | Rugg & Curran, 2007 |
+| **Scalp distribution** | Left parietal (P3, CP3, P5); sometimes bilateral | Wilding & Ranganath, 2012 |
+| **Generator** | Medial temporal lobe, posterior parietal cortex | Rugg & Curran, 2007 |
+| **Functional significance** | Recollection-based recognition; associated with retrieval of contextual/source information | Rugg & Curran, 2007 |
+| **Recommended ROI** | P3, CP3, P5 (left parietal); or bilateral P3/P4, CP3/CP4 | Wilding & Ranganath, 2012 |
+| **Recommended time window** | **500-800 ms** | Wilding & Ranganath, 2012 |
+| **Measurement** | Mean amplitude (old minus new difference) | Rugg & Curran, 2007 |
+
+#### Interpretation Notes
+
+- **Recollection view** (dominant): The parietal old/new effect indexes recollection, the retrieval of specific episodic details (Rugg & Curran, 2007)
+- **LPC overlap**: This component overlaps substantially in time and space with the P600/LPC from the language literature, raising questions about whether they are the same component (Sassenhagen & Fiebach, 2019; Brouwer et al., 2017)
+- **Attention/decision view**: Some researchers suggest the parietal old/new effect may partly reflect attentional orienting to retrieved memories or post-retrieval decision processes, rather than recollection per se (Herron et al., 2004)
+
+**Key references**: Rugg, M. D., & Curran, T. (2007). Event-related potentials and recognition memory. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, 11(6), 251-257.
+
+---
+
+### Dm (Difference due to subsequent Memory)
+
+| Property | Value | Source |
+|----------|-------|--------|
+| **Latency** | **300-800 ms** during encoding (variable depending on paradigm) | Paller & Wagner, 2002 |
+| **Polarity** | More positive for items later remembered than items later forgotten | Paller & Wagner, 2002 |
+| **Scalp distribution** | Broadly distributed; often frontocentral or centroparietal (varies by encoding task) | Paller & Wagner, 2002 |
+| **Generator** | Medial temporal lobe, prefrontal cortex | Paller & Wagner, 2002 |
+| **Functional significance** | Successful encoding processes; predicts subsequent memory performance | Paller & Wagner, 2002 |
+| **Recommended ROI** | Depends on encoding task; frontal (Fz, FCz) for semantic encoding; centroparietal (Cz, CPz, Pz) for perceptual encoding | Paller & Wagner, 2002 |
+| **Recommended time window** | **300-800 ms** during encoding (adjust based on grand average) | Paller & Wagner, 2002 |
+| **Measurement** | Mean amplitude (later remembered minus later forgotten) | Paller & Wagner, 2002 |
+
+**Design note**: Dm requires a subsequent memory paradigm -- study items at encoding, then classify at test as remembered/forgotten, and sort the encoding-phase ERP by subsequent memory outcome (Paller & Wagner, 2002).
+
+**Key references**: Paller, K. A., & Wagner, A. D. (2002). Observing the transformation of experience into memory. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, 6(2), 93-102.
+
+---
+
+## Quick Reference Table
+
+| Component | Latency (ms) | Polarity | Max Site | Domain | Key Citation |
+|-----------|-------------|----------|----------|--------|-------------|
+| P1 | 80-130 | + | O1/O2 | Visual | Di Russo et al., 2002 |
+| N1 | 150-200 | - | PO7/PO8 | Visual | Vogel & Luck, 2000 |
+| N170 | 140-200 | - | P7/P8 | Visual (faces) | Bentin et al., 1996 |
+| P3a | 250-350 | + | Fz/Cz | Visual/Attention | Polich, 2007 |
+| P3b | 300-600 | + | Pz | Visual/Attention | Polich, 2007 |
+| N2pc | 200-300 | - | PO7/PO8 (contra) | Visual/Attention | Luck & Hillyard, 1994 |
+| N400 | 300-500 | - | Cz/CPz | Language | Kutas & Federmeier, 2011 |
+| P600/LPC | 500-800 | + | Pz/CPz | Language | Kuperberg, 2007 |
+| ELAN | 100-300 | - | F7/F3 | Language | Friederici, 2002 |
+| LAN | 300-500 | - | F3/F7 | Language | Molinaro et al., 2011 |
+| ERN/Ne | 0-100 (resp) | - | FCz | Exec. Control | Gehring et al., 1993 |
+| Pe | 200-400 (resp) | + | Cz/CPz | Exec. Control | Overbeek et al., 2005 |
+| N2 (frontal) | 200-350 | - | Fz/FCz | Exec. Control | Folstein & Van Petten, 2008 |
+| CNV | Sustained | - | Cz/FCz | Exec. Control | Brunia et al., 2012 |
+| FN400 | 300-500 | + (old>new) | Fz/FCz | Memory | Curran, 2000 |
+| Parietal O/N | 500-800 | + (old>new) | P3/CP3 | Memory | Rugg & Curran, 2007 |
+| Dm | 300-800 | + (rem>forg) | Variable | Memory | Paller & Wagner, 2002 |
+
+---
+
+## References
+
+- Bentin, S., et al. (1996). Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans. *JOCN*, 8(6), 551-565.
+- Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2019). Toward a neurobiologically plausible model of language-related, negative event-related potentials. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 10, 298.
+- Brouwer, H., Crocker, M. W., Venhuizen, N. J., & Hoeks, J. C. J. (2017). A neurocomputational model of the N400 and the P600 in language processing. *Cognitive Science*, 41, 1318-1352.
+- Brunia, C. H. M., et al. (2012). Negative slow waves as indices of anticipation. In *The Oxford Handbook of ERP Components*. Oxford UP.
+- Coles, M. G. H., Scheffers, M. K., & Holroyd, C. B. (2001). Why is there an ERN/Ne on correct trials? *Psychophysiology*, 38(2), 241-247.
+- Curran, T. (2000). Brain potentials of recollection and familiarity. *Memory & Cognition*, 28(6), 923-938.
+- Dehaene, S., Posner, M. I., & Tucker, D. M. (1994). Localization of a neural system for error detection and compensation. *Psychological Science*, 5(5), 303-305.
+- Di Russo, F., et al. (2002). Cortical sources of the early components of the visual evoked potential. *HBM*, 15(2), 95-111.
+- Donchin, E., & Coles, M. G. H. (1988). Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? *BBS*, 11(3), 357-374.
+- Eimer, M. (1996). The N2pc component as an indicator of attentional selectivity. *Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology*, 99(3), 225-234.
+- Endrass, T., & Ullsperger, M. (2014). Specificity of performance monitoring changes in obsessive-compulsive disorder. *Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews*, 46, 124-138.
+- Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J., Hoormann, J., & Blanke, L. (1991). Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components. *Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology*, 78(6), 447-455.
+- Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. *Psychophysiology*, 44(4), 491-505.
+- Folstein, J. R., & Van Petten, C. (2008). Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component. *Psychophysiology*, 45(1), 152-170.
+- Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. *TICS*, 6(2), 78-84.
+- Gauthier, I., Curran, T., Curby, K. M., & Collins, D. (2003). Perceptual interference supports a non-modular account of face processing. *Nature Neuroscience*, 6(4), 428-432.
+- Gehring, W. J., et al. (1993). A neural system for error detection and compensation. *Psychological Science*, 4(6), 385-390.
+- Hagoort, P. (2003). How the brain solves the binding problem for language. *NeuroImage*, 20, S18-S29.
+- Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. *Language and Cognitive Processes*, 8(4), 439-483.
+- Herron, J. E., Quayle, A. H., & Rugg, M. D. (2004). Probability effects on the neural correlates of retrieval success. *NeuroImage*, 21(1), 302-310.
+- Hillyard, S. A., Vogel, E. K., & Luck, S. J. (1998). Sensory gain control (amplification) as a mechanism of selective attention. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B*, 353(1373), 1257-1270.
+- Holroyd, C. B., & Coles, M. G. H. (2002). The neural basis of human error processing: Reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity. *Psychological Review*, 109(4), 679-709.
+- Hopf, J. M., et al. (2000). Neural sources of focused attention in visual search. *Cerebral Cortex*, 10(12), 1233-1241.
+- Huster, R. J., et al. (2013). Electroencephalography of response inhibition tasks. *International Journal of Psychophysiology*, 87(3), 217-233.
+- Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing. *JEPLMC*, 31(5), 819-837.
+- Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting. *Annual Review of Psychology*, 62, 621-647.
+- Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. *Science*, 207(4427), 203-205.
+- Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension. *Brain Research*, 1146, 23-49.
+- Lau, E. F., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics. *Brain and Language*, 106(1), 1-11.
+- Luck, S. J. (2005). Ten simple rules for designing ERP experiments. In T. C. Handy (Ed.), *Event-Related Potentials: A Methods Handbook*. MIT Press.
+- Luck, S. J. (2014). *An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique* (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
+- Luck, S. J., & Hillyard, S. A. (1994). Spatial filtering during visual search. *JEP:HPP*, 20(5), 1000-1014.
+- Molinaro, N., et al. (2011). Grammatical agreement processing in reading. *Cortex*, 47(8), 908-930.
+- Nieuwenhuis, S., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Blom, J., Band, G. P. H., & Kok, A. (2001). Error-related brain potentials are differentially related to awareness of response errors. *Psychophysiology*, 38(5), 752-760.
+- Nieuwenhuis, S., et al. (2003). Electrophysiological correlates of anterior cingulate function in a go/no-go task. *Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience*, 3(1), 17-26.
+- O'Connell, R. G., Dockree, P. M., & Kelly, S. P. (2012). A supramodal accumulation-to-bound signal that determines perceptual decisions in humans. *Nature Neuroscience*, 15(12), 1729-1735.
+- Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. *JMLV*, 31(6), 785-806.
+- Overbeek, T. J. M., et al. (2005). Dissociable components of error processing. *Journal of Psychophysiology*, 19(4), 319-329.
+- Paller, K. A., & Wagner, A. D. (2002). Observing the transformation of experience into memory. *TICS*, 6(2), 93-102.
+- Paller, K. A., Voss, J. L., & Boehm, S. G. (2007). Validating neural correlates of familiarity. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences*, 11(6), 243-250.
+- Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. *Clinical Neurophysiology*, 118(10), 2128-2148.
+- Rossion, B., & Jacques, C. (2008). Does physical interstimulus variance account for early electrophysiological face sensitive responses in the human brain? *NeuroImage*, 39(4), 1959-1966.
+- Rugg, M. D., & Curran, T. (2007). Event-related potentials and recognition memory. *TICS*, 11(6), 251-257.
+- Sassenhagen, J., & Fiebach, C. J. (2019). Finding the P3 in the P600: Decoding shared neural mechanisms of responses to syntactic violations and oddball targets. *NeuroImage*, 200, 425-436.
+- Steinhauer, K., & Drury, J. E. (2012). On the early left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies. *Brain and Language*, 120(2), 135-162.
+- Tanaka, J. W., & Curran, T. (2001). A neural basis for expert object recognition. *Psychological Science*, 12(1), 43-47.
+- Tanner, D. (2015). On the left anterior negativity (LAN) in electrophysiological studies of morphosyntactic agreement. *Cortex*, 66, 149-155.
+- Tanner, D., Morgan-Short, K., & Luck, S. J. (2015). How inappropriate high-pass filters can produce artifactual effects. *Psychophysiology*, 52(8), 997-1009.
+- Tanner, D., & Van Hell, J. G. (2014). ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing. *Neuropsychologia*, 56, 289-301.
+- Twomey, D. M., Murphy, P. R., Kelly, S. P., & O'Connell, R. G. (2015). The classic P300 encodes a build-to-threshold decision variable. *European Journal of Neuroscience*, 42(1), 1636-1643.
+- van de Meerendonk, N., Kolk, H. H., Vissers, C. T. W., & Chwilla, D. J. (2010). Monitoring in language perception. *Language and Linguistic Compass*, 4(4), 211-224.
+- Voss, J. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). FN400 potentials are functionally identical to N400 potentials and reflect semantic processing during recognition testing. *Psychophysiology*, 48(4), 532-546.
+- Voss, J. L., & Paller, K. A. (2006). Fluent conceptual processing and explicit memory for faces are electrophysiologically distinct. *Journal of Neuroscience*, 26(3), 926-933.
+- Walter, W. G., et al. (1964). Contingent negative variation: An electric sign of sensori-motor association and expectancy in the human brain. *Nature*, 203(4943), 380-384.
+- Wilding, E. L., & Ranganath, C. (2012). Electrophysiological correlates of episodic memory processes. In *The Oxford Handbook of ERP Components*. Oxford UP.
+- Yeung, N., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural basis of error detection: Conflict monitoring and the error-related negativity. *Psychological Review*, 111(4), 931-959.