Literature DB >> 15518938

Effects of stop-signal probability in the stop-signal paradigm: the N2/P3 complex further validated.

J R Ramautar1, A Kok, K R Ridderinkhof.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of frequency of occurrence of stop signals in the stop-signal paradigm. Presenting stop signals less frequently resulted in faster reaction times to the go stimulus and a lower probability of inhibition. Also, go stimuli elicited larger and somewhat earlier P3 responses when stop signals occurred less frequently. Since the amplitude effect was more pronounced on trials when go signals were followed by fast than slow reactions, it probably reflected a stronger set to produce fast responses. N2 and P3 components to stop signals were observed to be larger and of longer latency when stop signals occurred less frequently. The amplitude enhancement of these N2 and P3 components were more pronounced for unsuccessful than for successful stop-signal trials. Moreover, the successfully inhibited stop trials elicited a frontocentral P3 whereas unsuccessfully inhibited stop trials elicited a more posterior P3 that resembled the classical P3b. P3 amplitude in the unsuccessfully inhibited condition also differed between waveforms synchronized with the stop signal and waveforms synchronized with response onset whereas N2 amplitude did not. Taken together these findings suggest that N2 reflected a greater significance of failed inhibitions after low probability stop signals while P3 reflected continued processing of the erroneous response after response execution.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15518938     DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2004.07.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Cogn        ISSN: 0278-2626            Impact factor:   2.310


  60 in total

1.  Expectations and violations: delineating the neural network of proactive inhibitory control.

Authors:  Bram B Zandbelt; Mirjam Bloemendaal; Sebastiaan F W Neggers; René S Kahn; Matthijs Vink
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 5.038

2.  Performance monitoring local field potentials in the medial frontal cortex of primates: supplementary eye field.

Authors:  Erik E Emeric; Melanie Leslie; Pierre Pouget; Jeffrey D Schall
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-07-21       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Event-related fields evoked by vocal response inhibition: a comparison of younger and older adults.

Authors:  Leidy J Castro-Meneses; Blake W Johnson; Paul F Sowman
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Influence of history on saccade countermanding performance in humans and macaque monkeys.

Authors:  Erik E Emeric; Joshua W Brown; Leanne Boucher; Roger H S Carpenter; Doug P Hanes; Robin Harris; Gordon D Logan; Reena N Mashru; Martin Paré; Pierre Pouget; Veit Stuphorn; Tracy L Taylor; Jeffrey D Schall
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2006-11-01       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 5.  Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: a review.

Authors:  Jonathan R Folstein; Cyma Van Petten
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2007-09-10       Impact factor: 4.016

Review 6.  Event-related brain potentials in the study of inhibition: cognitive control, source localization and age-related modulations.

Authors:  Luís Pires; José Leitão; Chiara Guerrini; Mário R Simões
Journal:  Neuropsychol Rev       Date:  2014-11-19       Impact factor: 7.444

7.  Effects of aging on temporal predictive mechanisms of speech and hand motor reaction time.

Authors:  Karim Johari; Dirk-Bart den Ouden; Roozbeh Behroozmand
Journal:  Aging Clin Exp Res       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.636

8.  The countermanding task revisited: fast stimulus detection is a key determinant of psychophysical performance.

Authors:  Emilio Salinas; Terrence R Stanford
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 9.  Models of response inhibition in the stop-signal and stop-change paradigms.

Authors:  Frederick Verbruggen; Gordon D Logan
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2008-09-04       Impact factor: 8.989

10.  On the role of the striatum in response inhibition.

Authors:  Bram B Zandbelt; Matthijs Vink
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-11-04       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.