Talk:Event-related potential

message: There is blatant advertising going on here.  This page should be about imparting information on ERP, not advertising a summer school at Bangor University, or various training courses  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.88.58.192 (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: please see suggestion to merge the "evoked potential" page into this page
 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert p levy (talk • contribs) 01:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to merge in related page with this one 

message: I do not get the sense of this sentence: "... the brain response to a single stimulus or event of interest is usually visible in the EEG recording of a single trial; to see the brain response to the stimulus, the experimenter must conduct many trials..." I guess that "not" is missing in the first part of the sentence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.187.94 (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2009
:Fixed. 13:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: They can (and frequently are) measured via electrocorticograms (ECoG), which is basically an EEG performed underneath the skull.  This absolute statement might want to be widened.  (See, for example, "A Direct Brain Interface Based On Event-Related Potentials" by Levine, 2000.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.196.217 (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ERPs are measured with EEG" 

message: The N2 dab page currently says that N2 may mean "an ERP component in the 200-300 ms poststimulus range". This seems to contradict the article here, which says that the number after the N is a number of milliseconds. Also, if 200-300 ms is a typical range, is N2 a realistic figure? I know nothing about this subject area, but perhaps an expert is watching this page. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two kinds of notation; the number may refer to a millisecond range, in which case people may use the full number (N200, P300, N400, P600) or may truncate it for efficiency (just calling those same components "N2", "P3", etc.; N400 and P600 are not truncated to "N4" and "P6" as often but it happens a bit). It also may refer to that component's being the nth component after some event. (For example, visually-presented words are often followed by an N1-P2 complex which often occurs well before 200 ms). This can be clarified in the article; I know Luck (2004) has a discussion of nomenclature in the introductory chapter. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I've clarified this in the article; thanks for pointing out the inconsistency. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible problem at [[N2]] tab page 

message: It is not accurate to call fMRI and PET scan hemodynamic tests. In medicine, a hemodynamic test measures some hemodynamic variable, e.g. blood pressure, flow, etc. fMRI and PET measure metabolism, which secondarily will depend on both local and systemic blood flow, which contributes to a delay in metabolic responses, but no one in medicine labels fMRI or PET scan as hemodynamic tests. Pollira (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hemodynamic" tests in Spatial and temporal resolution 

message: There is a paper mentioning that it's possible to measure reward positivity with Muse (headband).
There are some article explaining it, like: The reward positivity: From basic research on reward to a biomarker for depression
I appreciate if some with more knowledge in the area and could create an article about it, thanks. —Arthurfragoso (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reward‐related positivity 

message: Can someone reproduce that page here? (Under all international copyright law we can pull that page).
I am highly suspicious of a claim made 6 pages into a treatise as a citation, that's not where one puts relevant citations. 
Can a neutral observer validate this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.137.132 (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brown, Colin M; Peter Hagoort (1999). "The cognitive neuroscience of language". In Colin M. Brown and Peter Hagoort (ed.). The Neurocognition of Language. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 6.