Literature DB >> 2258747

Organization of sensory discrimination and response selection in choice and nonchoice conditions: a study using cerebral evoked potentials in normal humans.

D S Goodin1, M J Aminoff, S L Shefrin.   

Abstract

1. It has been suggested that the long-latency "event-related" cerebral evoked potentials (ERPs) reflect certain aspects of the neural processing underlying sensory discrimination in a two-choice reaction time task. The present paper examines the hypothesis that the coupling of these ERPs to sensory discrimination is variable and that the discrimination process is completed at different points during the course of cerebral processing, depending on the actual requirements of the task. 2. We recorded the cerebral evoked potentials and electromyogram (EMG) of the responding muscle in five different reaction time tasks, each requiring sensory discrimination and response selection of varying complexity. In the Choice condition two stimuli were presented, and two separate responses were required. In the two Go-No Go conditions two stimuli were presented, but a response was required to only one or the other of the stimuli. In the two Simple conditions only one stimulus was presented, and one response was required. 3. Under both Choice and Go-No Go conditions, the frequency histogram of the onset latency of the compound muscle action potential for the response to the frequent tone showed a bimodal distribution without overlap, suggesting that there were two distinct types of responder: fast and slow. The comparable histograms for the onset latency of the response to the rare tone also showed a bimodal distribution, but the mean onset latency was prolonged relative to the response to the frequent tone, and the mean separation was less so that the two distributions overlapped each other. 4. Despite the marked difference in response latencies between the fast and slow responders, there was no appreciable difference in cerebral evoked responses between the two groups. Moreover, in response to the frequent tone, all slow responders and, likewise, all fast responders had similar onset latencies of the averaged EMG activity regardless of condition. Nonetheless, fast or slow responders to the frequent tone on one block of trials were also fast or slow responders, respectively, to the rare tone on the same block of trials. 5. These results suggest that two separate sensory discrimination processes are occurring; the first relating to the presence or absence of the frequent (expected) stimulus, and the second relating to the presence or absence of the rare stimulus. The response to each tone can either be generated immediately after that tone is positively identified or, when accuracy is required, can be delayed until both stimuli have been successfully discriminated by the subject.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2258747     DOI: 10.1152/jn.1990.64.4.1270

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  5 in total

1.  Response times and handedness in simple reaction-time tasks.

Authors:  D S Goodin; M J Aminoff; T A Ortiz; R S Chequer
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Comparison of P100 and P300 cortical potentials in spatial frequency discrimination.

Authors:  L Mehaffey; W Seiple; K Holopigian
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Different event-related patterns of gamma-band power in brain waves of fast- and slow-reacting subjects.

Authors:  H Jokeit; S Makeig
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1994-07-05       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Subliminal semantic priming in speech.

Authors:  Jérôme Daltrozzo; Carine Signoret; Barbara Tillmann; Fabien Perrin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Increased reaction times and reduced response preparation already starts at middle age.

Authors:  Ria Wolkorte; Janine Kamphuis; Inge Zijdewind
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2014-04-28       Impact factor: 5.750

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.