The Cortical Source of the P300 ERP Generator in the Associative Learning Task: A Consensus of Four Inversion Algorithms

Daniyar Kalmagambetov, Mikhail Ye. Melnikov, Manzura Zholdassova, Altyngyl Kamzanova, D. Abdilmanov, Gaukhar K. Datkhabayeva, James Eliassen, Jane B. Allendorfer, Almira Kustubayeva

Brain Sciences, 2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3390/brainsci16090953
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Background: Associative learning, the process of binding stimuli, responses, and outcomes, is critical for behavioral adaptation. While event-related potentials (ERPs) like the P300 effectively index the cognitive effort and context updating required during trial-and-error learning, the precise cortical generators of these signals and their shift across development remain difficult to isolate due to the electroencephalography (EEG) inverse problem. The aim of the study was to examine the differences in P300 localization depending on the associative learning task stage and participants’ age. Methods: A total of 148 participants (aged 7–21) completed a visual-motor associative learning task while undergoing 64-channel EEG recording. Source localization was performed over the 300–500 ms (P300) time window as a conjunction of results of four inversion algorithms at FWE-corrected p < 0.05: multiple sparse priors with greedy search (GS), independent and identically distributed (IID), low-resolution electromagnetic tomography (LOR), and empirical Bayes beamformer (EBB). Exploratory three-algorithm (IID, LOR, and EBB) conjunction analysis results were also reported. Results: A spatial convergence analysis of Early > Late-stage differential maps revealed a consensus across all four models for both cue Onset-locked (right inferior parietal lobule/angular gyrus) and Feedback-locked (occipital, temporal (including bilateral middle temporal gyrus), and orbitofrontal regions) activity. The exploratory three-algorithm analysis additionally implicated left middle temporal gyrus and angular gyrus for cue Onset-locked rule acquisition. No results were produced for age-related effect surviving either the four-algorithm or three-algorithm consensus criterion. Conclusions: This multi-algorithm consensus links active rule search to distributed cortical pattern, involving angular (for cue stimulus processing) and middle temporal gyri (for feedback processing), while no age-related changes in these areas have been demonstrated.