What is the difference in response of the oddball paradigm (80% non target and 20% target) with stimulation of 50% target probability in literature? Any reference paper would be a great help.
In general, as the probability of the target increases, the amplitude of the P3 gets smaller. With a 50-50 design the task is no longer an oddball. These papers may offer helpful reviews of the oddball task design and interpretation issues:
Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(10), 2128–2148.
Rosenfeld, J. P., Biroschak, J. R., Kleschen, M. J., & Smith, K. M. (2005). Subjective and objective probability effects on P300 amplitude revisited. Psychophysiology, 42(3), 356–359.
In general, as the probability of the target increases, the amplitude of the P3 gets smaller. With a 50-50 design the task is no longer an oddball. These papers may offer helpful reviews of the oddball task design and interpretation issues:
Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(10), 2128–2148.
Rosenfeld, J. P., Biroschak, J. R., Kleschen, M. J., & Smith, K. M. (2005). Subjective and objective probability effects on P300 amplitude revisited. Psychophysiology, 42(3), 356–359.
Duncan-Johnson, C. C., & Donchin, E. (1982). The P300 component of the event-related brain potential as an index of information processing. Biological psychology, 14(1), 1-52.
Eimer, M. (1993). Effects of attention and stimulus probability on ERPs in a Go/Nogo task. Biological psychology, 35(2), 123-138.
Pfefferbaum, A., & Ford, J. M. (1988). ERPs to stimuli requiring response production and inhibition: effects of age, probability and visual noise. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section, 71(1), 55-63.
Bruin, K. J., & Wijers, A. A. (2002). Inhibition, response mode, and stimulus probability: a comparative event-related potential study. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113(7), 1172-1182.