Misinterpreting electrophysiology in human cognitive neuroscience

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
Full text 1,643 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract An axiomatic view in contemporary neuroscience is that EEG components such as event-related brain potentials (ERPs) and oscillations are directly interpretable as manifestations of biological processes that support sensory, motor, and cognitive constructs of interest. This premise justifies and propels research programs in laboratories worldwide, but with a substantial social and economic cost, warranted by the potential for basic-science discovery and the resulting bench-to-bedside transfer for health and disease. But a different premise would be more fruitful. This article proposes that EEG components in psychophysiological experiments relate to cognition indirectly through their more direct relationship with oculomotor action. The common experimental design that includes a baseline ocular fixation period preceding stimulus presentation provides an excellent template with which to develop the present proposal. Electrophysiological and eye-tracking evidence (3 published and 3 new data sets: 6 experiments, Ntotal = 204, in the context of face and affective picture viewing, reading, listening, rest, and microsleep) demonstrates how and why common conclusions, and reliance on them in clinical practice/treatment efficacy and drug development studies, are at best premature. Results indicate that the oculomotor system plays a mediating role between such EEG phenomena and cognition. Present evidence supports a complementary view of how EEG can shape the development of a broader thought horizon in psychophysiological theory and practice. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00