Page Last Updated: May 15, 2026
HBCD EEG Tasksđź”—
This section summarizes the four EEG tasks collected during HBCD study visits V03, V04, and V06, with complete task descriptions provided in Fox et al. 2024. Additional information relevant to all HBCD EEG data can be found in the Overview & EEG Protocols and Quality Control Procedures sections.
Auditory Mismatch Negativity Taskđź”—
The Auditory mismatch negativity (MMN) Task (v.11.29.23) facilitates examining auditory evoked potentials and habituation/dishabituation to auditory stimuli. The MMN captures differences in neural responses to standard (“ba”) and deviant (“da”) stimuli. From this task the MMN difference wave is computed, which is also known as the Mismatch Response (MMR). The amplitude/latency of this difference wave has been linked to language (Choudhury & Benasich, 2011), temperament/personality (Gurrera et al., 2001; Marshall et al., 2009), internalizing problems (Reeb-Sutherland et al., 2009), externalizing/attention problems (Gumenyuk et al., 2005), and disorders including autism (Lepistö et al., 2005; Schwartz et al., 2018) and reading ability/dyslexia (Leppänen et al., 2010; Norton, Beach, et al., 2021).
Change in ISI Between Visits
The interstimulus interval (ISI) for the Auditory Mismatch Negativity task changed between visits V03 and V04/V06 - see Fox et al. 2024 and Morr et al. 2002 for details.
Stimtracker Artifact
The MMN, VEP, and FACE task data may contain an artifact originating from the StimTracker device used for stimulus timing - see more information on this here.
Auditory stimuli (“ba” = 196 ms; “da” = 198 ms) are presented while a video plays on an iPad (brightness at maximum, in airplane mode, and unplugged) to serve as a visual distractor. The task is paused for breaks as needed.
Visit 3 trial progression schematic:
Trial Count
|
Timing Details
|
Choudhury, N., & Benasich, A. A. (2011). Maturation of auditory evoked potentials from 6 to 48 months: Prediction to 3 and 4 year language and cognitive abilities. Clinical Neurophysiology, 122(2), 320–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2010.05.035
Fox, N. A., Pérez-Edgar, K., Morales, S., Brito, N. H., Campbell, A. M., Cavanagh, J. F., Gabard-Durnam, L. J., Hudac, C. M., Key, A. P., Larson-Prior, L. J., Pedapati, E. V., Norton, E. S., Reetzke, R., Roberts, T. P., Rutter, T. M., Scott, L. S., Shuffrey, L. C., Antúnez, M., Boylan, M. R., … Yoder, L. (2024). The development and structure of the Healthy Brain and Child Development (HBCD) study EEG Protocol. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 69, 101447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2024.101447
Gumenyuk, V., Korzyukov, O., Escera, C., Hämäläinen, M., Huotilainen, M., Häyrinen, T., Oksanen, H., Näätänen, R., Von Wendt, L., & Alho, K. (2005). Electrophysiological evidence of enhanced distractibility in ADHD children. Neuroscience Letters, 374(3), 212–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2004.10.081
Gurrera, R. J., O’Donnell, B. F., Nestor, P. G., Gainski, J., & McCarley, R. W. (2001). The P3 auditory event–related brain potential indexes major personality traits. Biological Psychiatry, 49(11), 922–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(00)01067-2
Lachmann, T., Berti, S., Kujala, T., & Schröger, E. (2005). Diagnostic subgroups of developmental dyslexia have different deficits in neural processing of tones and phonemes. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 55(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2004.11.005
Lepistö, T., Kujala, T., Vanhala, R., Alku, P., Huotilainen, M., & Näätänen, R. (2005). The discrimination of and orienting to speech and non-speech sounds in children with autism. Brain Research, 1066(1–2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2005.10.052
Leppänen, P. H., Hämäläinen, J. A., Salminen, H. K., Eklund, K. M., Guttorm, T. K., Lohvansuu, K., Puolakanaho, A., & Lyytinen, H. (2010). Newborn brain event-related potentials revealing atypical processing of sound frequency and the subsequent association with later literacy skills in children with familial dyslexia. Cortex, 46(10), 1362–1376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2010.06.003
Marshall, P. J., Reeb, B. C., & Fox, N. A. (2009). Electrophysiological responses to auditory novelty in temperamentally different 9-month-old infants. Developmental Science, 12(4), 568–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00808.x
Morr, M. L., Shafer, V. L., Kreuzer, J. A., & Kurtzberg, D. (2002). Maturation of mismatch negativity in typically developing infants and preschool children. Ear and Hearing, 23(2), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-200204000-00005
Norton, E. S., Beach, S. D., Eddy, M. D., McWeeny, S., Ozernov-Palchik, O., Gaab, N., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2021). ERP mismatch negativity amplitude and asymmetry reflect phonological and rapid automatized naming skills in English-speaking kindergartners. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 624617. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.624617
Reeb-Sutherland, B. C., Vanderwert, R. E., Degnan, K. A., Marshall, P. J., Pérez-Edgar, K., Chronis-Tuscano, A., Pine, D. S., & Fox, N. A. (2009). Attention to novelty in behaviorally inhibited adolescents moderates risk for anxiety. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(11), 1365–1372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02170.x
Schwartz, S., Shinn-Cunningham, B., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2018). Meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature characterizing auditory mismatch negativity in individuals with autism. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 87, 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.01.008
Faces Taskđź”—
The Faces task (FACE) (v.11.29.23) assesses child and infant face processing abilities as well as the underlying neural activity supporting face and object processing. ERPs are computed as a function of repeated presentation of faces and objects. The ERPs index different stages of processing including attention, perception, categorization, individuation and memory. The ERP components elicited by the Faces task are the P1, N290, and P400 components.
Stimtracker Artifact
The MMN, VEP, and FACE task data may contain an artifact originating from the StimTracker device used for stimulus timing - see more information on this here.
ERPs indexing different stages of processing are computed from repeated presentations of faces and objects. In the Faces task, the ERP components include P1, N290, and P400. If the child loses attention, an attention getter may be used. The stimulus set includes 36 unique images, with women with neutral expressions, spanning the following self-identified demographics: Indigenous, Black, White, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and South Asian.
The Face task (Face vs. Object) consists of 2 blocks:
- Block 1: 50 trials of upright faces & 50 trials of inverted faces
- Block 2: 50 trials of upright faces & 50 trials of objects
Timing Details:
- Stimulus duration: 500 ms
- Interstimulus interval: 600-700 ms
- Total trial length: 110-1200 ms
Barry-Anwar, R., Riggins, T., & Scott, L. S. (2024). Electrophysiology in developmental populations: Key methods and findings. In K. Cohen Kadosh (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. Oxford Library of Psychology. Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198827474.013.3
Fox, N. A., Pérez-Edgar, K., Morales, S., Brito, N. H., Campbell, A. M., Cavanagh, J. F., Gabard-Durnam, L. J., Hudac, C. M., Key, A. P., Larson-Prior, L. J., Pedapati, E. V., Norton, E. S., Reetzke, R., Roberts, T. P., Rutter, T. M., Scott, L. S., Shuffrey, L. C., Antúnez, M., Boylan, M. R., … Yoder, L. (2024). The development and structure of the Healthy Brain and Child Development (HBCD) study EEG Protocol. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 69, 101447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2024.101447
Markant, J., & Scott, L. S. (2018). Attention and perceptual learning interact in the development of the other-race effect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(3), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418769884
Scherf, K. S., & Scott, L. S. (2012). Connecting developmental trajectories: Biases in face processing from infancy to adulthood. Developmental Psychobiology, 54(6), 643–663. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.21013
Visual Evoked Potential Taskđź”—
The Visual Evoked Potential Task (VEP) (v.11.29.23) measures development of visual cortex and response to stimuli, reflecting underlying cortical development. VEP amplitude and latency decreases with age during the first three years of life. The VEP has been associated with concurrent and later developmental outcomes as a function of prenatal substance exposures (Margolis et al., 2024), early visual enrichment or deprivation (Jensen et al., 2019), vision system maturation (Lippé et al., 2009), neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g., ASD and ADHD; Cremone-Caira et al., 2023; Nazhvani et al., 2013), and reading and learning disabilities (Shandiz et al., 2017). The morphology of the VEP likely reflects varying degrees of synaptic efficiency and as such, can be used as a readout of general cortical function.
Stimtracker Artifact
The MMN, VEP, and FACE task data may contain an artifact originating from the StimTracker device used for stimulus timing - see more information on this here.
A flashing black and white 20x20 checkerboard with a red circle in the center is shown for the duration of the task (trial counts of 60 Checkerboard A and 60 Checkerboard B for a total of 120).
The task elicits a VEP response in the occipital area (Oz), which consists of the following components:
- N1 (first negative peak)
- P1 (first positive peak)
- N2 (second negative peak)
Cremone-Caira, A., Braverman, Y., MacNaughton, G. A., Nikolaeva, J. I., & Faja, S. (2023). Reduced Visual Evoked Potential Amplitude in Autistic Children with Co-Occurring Features of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-023-06005-7
Fox, N. A., Pérez-Edgar, K., Morales, S., Brito, N. H., Campbell, A. M., Cavanagh, J. F., Gabard-Durnam, L. J., Hudac, C. M., Key, A. P., Larson-Prior, L. J., Pedapati, E. V., Norton, E. S., Reetzke, R., Roberts, T. P., Rutter, T. M., Scott, L. S., Shuffrey, L. C., Antúnez, M., Boylan, M. R., … Yoder, L. (2024). The development and structure of the Healthy Brain and Child Development (HBCD) study EEG Protocol. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 69, 101447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2024.101447
Jensen, S. K. G., Kumar, S., Xie, W., Tofail, F., Haque, R., Petri, W. A., & Nelson, C. A. (2019). Neural correlates of early adversity among Bangladeshi infants. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 3507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39242-x
Lippé, S., Kovacevic, N., & McIntosh, A. R. (2009). Differential Maturation of Brain Signal Complexity in the Human Auditory and Visual System. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3, 48. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.048.2009
Margolis, E. T., Davel, L., Bourke, N. J., Bosco, C., Zieff, M. R., Monachino, A. D., Mazubane, T., Williams, S. R., Miles, M., & Jacobs, C. A. (2024). Longitudinal effects of prenatal alcohol exposure on visual neurodevelopment over infancy. Developmental Psychology. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-66755-001
Nazhvani, A. D., Boostani, R., Afrasiabi, S., & Sadatnezhad, K. (2013). Classification of ADHD and BMD patients using visual evoked potential. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, 115(11), 2329–2335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2013.08.009
Shandiz, J. H., Heyrani, M., Sobhani-Rad, D., Salehinejad, Z., Shojaei, S., Khoshsima, M. J., Azimi, A., Yekta, A. A., & Yazdi, S. H. H. (2017). Pattern Visual Evoked Potentials in Dyslexic Children. Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research, 12(4), 402–406. https://doi.org/10.4103/jovr.jovr_106_16
Video Resting State Taskđź”—
The Video Resting State Task (RS) (v.11.29.23) provides assessment of the development of large-scale neural networks during infancy and early childhood via information about neural oscillations measured in EEG power across the scalp. Developmental changes in oscillatory activity reflect underlying developing large-scale neural networks associated with early self-regulatory, cognitive, and affective processes and developmental outcomes (Gabard-Durnam et al., 2019; Jones et al., 2020; Whedon et al., 2020). The metrics derived from the resting EEG signal include power across the frequency spectrum (Gabard-Durnam et al., 2019) and relative power between different scalp locations (Davidson & Fox, 1982).
Change in Video Content Between Visits
The video content for the Resting State task changed between visits V03 and V04/V06 - see Fox et al. 2024 and Morr et al. 2002 for details. Also note that RS is not a true resting state as there is a visual stimulus present.
Participants watch a silent video for the duration of the RS task. In V03 (left set of images below), the video displays a variety of colorful and abstract toys and other visuals. In V04 & V06 (right set of images below), the video includes a variety of marble run and construction visuals.
Davidson, R. J., & Fox, N. A. (1982). Asymmetrical Brain Activity Discriminates Between Positive and Negative Affective Stimuli in Human Infants. Science, 218(4578), 1235–1237. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7146906
Fox, N. A., Pérez-Edgar, K., Morales, S., Brito, N. H., Campbell, A. M., Cavanagh, J. F., Gabard-Durnam, L. J., Hudac, C. M., Key, A. P., Larson-Prior, L. J., Pedapati, E. V., Norton, E. S., Reetzke, R., Roberts, T. P., Rutter, T. M., Scott, L. S., Shuffrey, L. C., Antúnez, M., Boylan, M. R., … Yoder, L. (2024). The development and structure of the Healthy Brain and Child Development (HBCD) study EEG Protocol. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 69, 101447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2024.101447
Gabard-Durnam, L. J., Wilkinson, C., Kapur, K., Tager-Flusberg, H., Levin, A. R., & Nelson, C. A. (2019). Longitudinal EEG power in the first postnatal year differentiates autism outcomes. Nature Communications, 10(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12202-9
Jones, E. J. H., Goodwin, A., Orekhova, E., Charman, T., Dawson, G., Webb, S. J., & Johnson, M. H. (2020). Infant EEG theta modulation predicts childhood intelligence. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 11232. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67687-y
Whedon, M., Perry, N. B., & Bell, M. A. (2020). Relations between frontal EEG maturation and inhibitory control in preschool in the prediction of children’s early academic skills. Brain and Cognition, 145, 105636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2020.105636