The present review focuses on the utility of the amplitude of P3 of as a measure of processing capacity and mental workload. The paper starts with a brief outline of the conceptual framework underlying the relationship between P3 amplitude and task demands, and the cognitive task manipulations that determine demands on capacity. P3 amplitude results are then discussed on the basis of an extensive review of the relevant literature. It is concluded that although it has often been assumed that P3 amplitude depends on the capacity for processing task relevant stimuli, the utility of P3 amplitude as a sensitive and diagnostic measure of processing capacity remains limited. The major factor that prompts this conclusion is that the two principal task variables that have been used to manipulate capacity allocation, namely task difficulty and task emphasis, have opposite effects on the amplitude of P3. I suggest that this is because, in many tasks, an increase in difficulty transforms the structure or actual content of the flow of information in the processing systems, thereby interfering with the very processes that underlie P3 generation. Finally, in an attempt to theoretically integrate the results of the reviewed studies, it is proposed that P3 amplitude reflects activation of elements in a event-categorization network that is controlled by the joint operation of attention and working memory.

This study examined the effect of response selection and execution on P3 latency during the performance of simple reaction time (RT) and stimulus–response compatibility tasks. Response time on these tasks was defined in terms of RT and movement time (MT). Event-related brain potentials were recorded from 67 female participants concurrently with the performance measures. On the simple RT task, the distance of the response button from the home button was varied (7, 15, and 23 cm). When stimulus evaluation demands were minimal, response execution affected P3 latency, with increased response button distance resulting in increased P3 latency. However, these movement effects were modest, and in most protocols, would not be a confounding factor. The stimulus–response compatibility task examined the interaction of stimulus evaluation demands and response requirements. RT, MT, and P3 latency were affected by stimulus congruency, whereas RT and P3 amplitude were affected by response compatibility.