Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41230546›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025

Revisiting the Model Human Processor: a neurophysiological investigation based on P300 and Bereitschaftspotential.

Toshitaka Higashino, Naoki Wakamiya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Toshitaka HigashinoGraduate School of Information Science and Technology, The University of Osaka, Suita, Japan.
Naoki WakamiyaGraduate School of Information Science and Technology, The University of Osaka, Suita, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The Model Human Processor (MHP), while useful, lacks direct neurophysiological validation. This study aimed to validate and extend the MHP by analyzing P300 and Bereitschaftspotential (BP) brainwave components. Methods: Our initial finding of qualitatively different neural signatures between correct and incorrect trials led to the hypothesis that the "correct" trial group is a mixture of different processing types. We tested this by segregating correct trials based on the presence or absence of the P300 component, which we reasoned is a key marker of the MHP's conscious "Initiate Response" process. Results: We identified a P300-absent subgroup even among correct responses. This subgroup exhibited significantly shorter reaction times than its P300-present counterpart and showed a neural signature strikingly similar to that of incorrect trials, including a delayed negative peak in the BP. Discussion: These results suggest the human information processing pathway is not monolithic. We propose a new model that bifurcates after perception into either a "Deliberate Process" (P300-present), which aligns with the MHP, or a high-speed "Automatic Process" (P300-absent) that bypasses the MHP's "Initiate Response" process. This work provides neurophysiological validation for the MHP and lends new neural support for dual-process theory.

Indexed as

Bereitschaftspotentialdual-process theoryEEGModel Human ProcessorP300reaction time

Identifiers

PMID41230546
PMCPMC12602528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.