Amplitude and Latency of P300 Component from Auditory Stimulus in Different Types of Personality: An Event Related Potential Study
The P300 from Event related potential (ERP) explains the psycho-physiological phenomenon in human body. The present study aims to identify the differences of amplitude and latency of P300 component from auditory stimuli, between ambiversion and extraversion types of personality. Ambivert (N=20) and extravert (N=20) undergoing ERP recording at the Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (HUSM) laboratory. Electroencephalogram data was recorded with oddball paradigm, counting auditory standard and target tones, from nine electrode sites (Fz, Cz, Pz, T3, T4, T5, T6, P3 and P4) by using the 128 HydroCel Geodesic Sensor Net. The P300 latency of the target tones at all electrodes were insignificant. Similarly, the P300 latency of the standard tones were also insignificant except at Fz and T3 electrode. Likewise, the P300 amplitude of the target and standard tone in all electrode sites were insignificant. Extravert and ambivert indicate similar characteristic in cognition processing from auditory task.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1123745Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1160
 D. P. McAdams and J. L. Pals, “A new Big Five: fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality,” American Psychologist, vol.61, no.3, pp.204, 2006.
 V., Devadoss & M. C. J. Anand, “Dimensions of Personality of Women in Chennai using CETD Matrix,” International Journal of Computer Applications, vol.50, no.5, pp.0975-8887, 2012.
 G. Matthews, I. J. Deary and M.C. Whiteman, Personality Traits, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
 M. C. O’Connor and S.V. Paunonen, "Big Five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance", Personality and Individual Differences, vol.43, no.5, pp.971-990, 2007.
 Di Fabio and D.H. Saklofske, "Comparing ability and self-report trait emotional intelligence, fluid intelligence, and personality traits in career decision", Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 64, pp. 174-178, 2014.
 S. Dunkel and D. Van der Linden, "Evidence for the general factor of personality as social-effectiveness", Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 64, pp. 147-151, 2014.
 H. J. Eysenck, "Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3?—Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm", Personality and Individual Differences, vol.12, no.8, pp. 773-790, 1991.
 P. T. Costa and R.R. MacCrae, Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO FFI): Professional Manual: Psychological Assessment Resources, 1992
 E. C. Tupes and R.E. Christal, "Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings", Journal of Personality, vol. 60, no.2, pp 225-251, 1992.
 P. T. Costa Jr & T. A. Widiger, "Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality", American Psychological Association, 1994.
 D. Cohen & J. P. Schmidt,"Ambiversion: characteristics of midrange responders on the Introversion-Extraversion continuum", Journal of Personality Assessment, vol. 43, no.5, pp. 514-516, 1979.
 M. Crowe, R. Andel, N. L. Pedersen, L. Fratiglioni, & M. Gatz, "Personality and risk of cognitive impairment 25 years later", Psychology and Aging, vol.21, no.3, pp.573, 2006.
 D. S. Goodin, “Clinical utility of long latency ‘cognitive’event-related potentials (P3): the pros,” Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 2-5, 1990.
 J. Polich, “Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b”, Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 118, no.10, pp. 2128-2148, 2007.
 M. Yusoff, A. Rahim and A. R. Esa. The USM personality inventory (USMaP-i) manual (Online). Available: http://www. medic. usm.my/dme/images/stories/staff/KKMED/2010/manual% 20usmap-i. pdf., 2010. (Retrieved on September 20, 2015).
 R. J. Gurrera, D. F. Salisbury, B. F., O'Donnell, P. G. Nestor & R. W. McCarley, “Auditory P3 indexes personality traits and cognitive function in healthy men and women”, Psychiatry Res, vol.133, no.2-3, pp. 215-228, 2005.