Table 3.

Electrophysiology updates

Key publications	Sample	Key findings
P300 oddball paradigm
Hamilton et al. (2019) [51••]	NAPLS2: CHR (N = 552), CHR-C (N = 73), CHR-NC (N = 225)	CHR-C vs CHR-NC smaller auditory target P3b amplitude and a shorter time to conversion
Tang et al. (2020) et al. [52]	SHARP: CHR (N = 104), CHR-C (N = 19), CHR-NC (N = 75)	CHR-C vs CHR-NC smaller auditory novel P3a
Foss-Feig et al. (2021) [53]	NAPLS2: CHR (N = 304, 14 ASD + , 290 ASD-), CHR-C (N = 75, 4 ASD + , 71 ASD-)	CHR-C vs CHR-NC smaller visual novel P3a amplitude and auditory target P3b amplitude but comorbid ASD moderated this relationship and greater P300 amplitudes were associated with conversion among CHR + ASD individuals
Duncan et al. (2022) [54]	NAPLS2: CHR (N = 552), CHR-C (N = 73), CHR-NC (N = 225)	CHR-C vs CHR-NC had reduced N100 amplitude to both standard and novel stimuli that was associated with earlier time to conversion
Mismatch negativity
Fryer et al. (2020) [56]	NAPLS2: CHR (N = 579), CHR-C (N = 77), CHR-NC (N = 238)	CHR-C vs CHR-NC-Remitted had deficits in response to late-appearing standards. In CHR-C, greater reduction in RP was predictive of shorter time to conversion among those not receiving pharmacotherapy
Hamilton et al. (2022) [55••]	NAPLS2: CHR (N = 580), CHR-C (N = 77), CHR-NC (N = 238)	CHR-C vs CHR-NC had greater deficits in MMN amplitude in double deviant paradigm that was also associated with shorter time to conversion
Startle modulation
Cadenhead et al. (2020) [64]	CHR (N = 543), CHR-C (N = 58), CHR-NC (N = 255)	CHR-C vs CHR-NC had slower startle response latency but did not differ in PPI. In CHR-C, PPI was positively correlated with age while this was not present in HC

SHARP Shanghai at Risk for Psychosis, NAPLS North American Prodrome Longitudinal Studies, CHR clinical high risk, CHR-C clinical high risk converted, CHR-NC CHR non-converted, RP repetitive positivity, HC healthy comparison