Literature DB >> 26827917

The neural dynamics of stimulus and response conflict processing as a function of response complexity and task demands.

Sarah E Donohue1, Lawrence G Appelbaum2, Cameron C McKay3, Marty G Woldorff4.   

Abstract

Both stimulus and response conflict can disrupt behavior by slowing response times and decreasing accuracy. Although several neural activations have been associated with conflict processing, it is unclear how specific any of these are to the type of stimulus conflict or the amount of response conflict. Here, we recorded electrical brain activity, while manipulating the type of stimulus conflict in the task (spatial [Flanker] versus semantic [Stroop]) and the amount of response conflict (two versus four response choices). Behaviorally, responses were slower to incongruent versus congruent stimuli across all task and response types, along with overall slowing for higher response-mapping complexity. The earliest incongruency-related neural effect was a short-duration frontally-distributed negativity at ~200 ms that was only present in the Flanker spatial-conflict task. At longer latencies, the classic fronto-central incongruency-related negativity 'N(inc)' was observed for all conditions, but was larger and ~100 ms longer in duration with more response options. Further, the onset of the motor-related lateralized readiness potential (LRP) was earlier for the two vs. four response sets, indicating that smaller response sets enabled faster motor-response preparation. The late positive complex (LPC) was present in all conditions except the two-response Stroop task, suggesting this late conflict-related activity is not specifically related to task type or response-mapping complexity. Importantly, across tasks and conditions, the LRP onset at or before the conflict-related N(inc), indicating that motor preparation is a rapid, automatic process that interacts with the conflict-detection processes after it has begun. Together, these data highlight how different conflict-related processes operate in parallel and depend on both the cognitive demands of the task and the number of response options.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Conflict; EEG; Flanker; LPC; LRP; N2; N450; Stroop

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26827917      PMCID: PMC4808442          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.01.035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  63 in total

1.  An ERP study of the temporal course of the Stroop color-word interference effect.

Authors:  M Liotti; M G Woldorff; R Perez; H S Mayberg
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 3.139

2.  The relative involvement of anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex in attentional control depends on nature of conflict.

Authors:  M P Milham; M T Banich; A Webb; V Barad; N J Cohen; T Wszalek; A F Kramer
Journal:  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res       Date:  2001-12

3.  Strategic control and medial frontal negativity: beyond errors and response conflict.

Authors:  Bruce D Bartholow; Melanie A Pearson; Cheryl L Dickter; Kenneth J Sher; Monica Fabiani; Gabriele Gratton
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.016

4.  Separating semantic conflict and response conflict in the Stroop task: a functional MRI study.

Authors:  Vincent van Veen; Cameron S Carter
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Disentangling sequential effects of stimulus- and response-related conflict and stimulus-response repetition using brain potentials.

Authors:  Mike Wendt; Marcus Heldmann; Thomas F Münte; Rainer H Kluwe
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 6.  Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control.

Authors:  Tobias Egner
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.282

7.  An ERP investigation of the Stroop task: the role of the cingulate in attentional allocation and conflict resolution.

Authors:  Gjurgjica Badzakova-Trajkov; Kylie J Barnett; Karen E Waldie; Ian J Kirk
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2008-12-03       Impact factor: 3.252

8.  N200 in the flanker task as a neurobehavioral tool for investigating executive control.

Authors:  B Kopp; F Rist; U Mattler
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 4.016

9.  Tests of the automaticity of reading: dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli.

Authors:  D Kahneman; D Chajczyk
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1983-08       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Cognitive and brain consequences of conflict.

Authors:  Jin Fan; Jonathan I Flombaum; Bruce D McCandliss; Kathleen M Thomas; Michael I Posner
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 6.556

View more
  6 in total

1.  When Conflict Cannot be Avoided: Relative Contributions of Early Selection and Frontal Executive Control in Mitigating Stroop Conflict.

Authors:  Sirawaj Itthipuripat; Sean Deering; John T Serences
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 5.357

2.  Multiple Midfrontal Thetas Revealed by Source Separation of Simultaneous MEG and EEG.

Authors:  Marrit B Zuure; Leighton B Hinkley; Paul H E Tiesinga; Srikantan S Nagarajan; Michael X Cohen
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-09-08       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Neural cascade of conflict processing: Not just time-on-task.

Authors:  Cameron C McKay; Berry van den Berg; Marty G Woldorff
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2016-12-23       Impact factor: 3.139

4.  Acute alcohol does not impair attentional inhibition as measured with Stroop interference scores but impairs Stroop performance.

Authors:  P Riedel; M Wolff; M Spreer; J Petzold; M H Plawecki; T Goschke; U S Zimmermann; M N Smolka
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 4.530

5.  Enhancing allocation of visual attention with emotional cues presented in two sensory modalities.

Authors:  Ulrike Zimmer; Mike Wendt; Marlene Pacharra
Journal:  Behav Brain Funct       Date:  2022-09-22       Impact factor: 3.950

6.  Unpleasant Odors Affect Alerting Attention in Young Men: An Event-Related Potential Study Using the Attention Network Test.

Authors:  Minggang Zhang; Xinyu Gong; Jiafeng Jia; Xiaochun Wang
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 4.677

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.