Effects of pre-stimulus processing on subsequent events in a warned Go/NoGo paradigm: Response preparation, execution and inhibition

Smith, Janette L.; Johnstone, Stuart J.; Barry, Robert J.

doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.07.013

Cited by 135 publications

(123 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, it is unlikely that this effect reflects processes involved in response selection or preparation, as has been suggested for the enhanced positivity to temporally attended targets (e.g., Nobre, 2001). It has recently been suggested that the P3 to no-go stimuli (equivalent to our nontarget stimuli) is an index of motor inhibition (e.g., Bruin, Wijers, & van Staveren, 2001;Smith, Johnstone, & Barry, 2006. In support of this notion, it has been shown that the amplitude of the no-go P3 depends on the level of prior preparation for a response: The stronger a response had been prepared, the more inhibition was necessary to suppress its execution in cases in which a no-go stimulus was presented (Bruin et al, 2001;Smith et al, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of temporal trial-by-trial cuing on early and late stages of auditory processing: Evidence from event-related potentials

Lampar

Lange

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Temporal-cuing studies show faster responding to stimuli at an attended versus unattended time point. Whether the mechanisms involved in this temporal orienting of attention are located early or late in the processing stream has not been answered unequivocally. To address this question, we measured event-related potentials in two versions of an auditory temporal cuing task: Stimuli at the uncued time point either required a response (Experiment 1) or did not (Experiment 2). In both tasks, attention was oriented to the cued time point, but attention could be selectively focused on the cued time point only in Experiment 2. In both experiments, temporal orienting was associated with a late positivity in the timerange of the P3. An early enhancement in the timerange of the auditory N1 was observed only in Experiment 2. Thus, temporal attention improves auditory processing at early sensory levels only when it can be focused selectively. Keywords Attention . Evoked potentials . Temporal processingIn most everyday situations, we experience stimulation from different sensory modalities that arises from various spatial locations and changes dynamically over time. Typically, only a small subset of the information that reaches our sensory systems is relevant for our current task. We therefore choose certain stimuli for prioritized processing. Which stimuli we choose is influenced by our current needs and expectations, but we may also freely decide to attend to certain stimuli. The underlying processes are typically referred to as attentional orienting. In other words,"attentional orienting can be defined as the set of processes by which neural resources are deployed selectively toward specific attributes of events on the basis of changing motivation, expectation, or volition in order to optimize perception and action" (Nobre, 2004, p. 157). Whereas the majority of attention research has focused on the spatial orienting of attention, evidence has accumulated over the last decade that perception and action can also be improved by orienting attention to specific moments in time (Nobre, Correa, & Coull 2007;Nobre & Coull, 2010;Nobre & O'Reilly, 2004). Behavioral evidence (i.e., faster and more accurate responses) for temporal orienting has been provided by visual studies using a temporal-cuing paradigm, similar to the symbolic spatial-cuing task developed by Posner and colleagues (Posner, Snyder, & Davidson, 1980). In symbolic temporal cuing, the cue indicates when (instead of where) the target will most likely appear (e.g., Correa, Lupiáñez, Milliken, & Tudela, 2004;Correa, Lupiáñez, & Tudela 2005;Coull & Nobre, 1998;Griffin, Miniussi, & Nobre, 2001Miniussi, Wilding, Coull, & Nobre, 1999). As in spatial cuing, it is assumed that the increased probability of targets at one time point gives rise to an attention shift to this time point. Different responding to cued and uncued stimuli is regarded as a sign of attentional orienting. Since, however, the uncued stimuli are relevant for response-selection, too, they may not...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of temporal trial-by-trial cuing on early and late stages of auditory processing: Evidence from event-related potentials

Lampar

Lange

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Broyd et al, 2005, Dimoska and Johnstone, 2007, Dimoska and Johnstone, 2008, Dimoska et al, 2003, Smith et al, 2004, Smith et al, 2006, Smith et al, 2008, Thomas et al, 2007, Watson et al, 2005 which reduces the number of statistical comparisons made while optimally allowing for differences in the anterior-posterior and hemispheric dimensions (Picton et al, 2000, Smith et al, 2004, Watson et al, 2005.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although several studies support the association between NoGo-N2 and inhibition (Bruin and Wijers, 2002, Jodo and Kayama, 1992, Roche et al, 2005, others have questioned the relationship (Donkers and van Boxtel, 2004, Falkenstein, 2006, Smith et al, 2006. Doubt has also been raised about the relationship between NoGo P3 and inhibition, which in some studies shows no systematic relationship with performance (see Falkenstein et al, 1999 for review).…”

Section: Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sequence effects in the Go/NoGo task: Inhibition and facilitation

Thomas

Gonsalvez

Johnstone

2009

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facilitation and inhibition are asymmetric aspects of attention that differentially affect response times (RTs), accuracy and neuroelectric activity in many experimental tasks. Both vary as a function of stimulus context, with stimulus repetitions, for example, often resulting in facilitation in terms of speed, accuracy or reduced neural activity. Although inhibition has been extensively studied in the Go/NoGo task, facilitation has been overlooked. Twenty healthy adults performed an adapted Go/NoGo task which manipulated levels of facilitation and inhibition. Event related potential (ERP) and behavioural measures were averaged according to preceding stimulus sequences. Established Go/NoGo effects for N2 and P3 components were replicated. Behavioural and ERP measures, however, showed strong sequence effects. Correlates of facilitation included reduced P1 and N1 latencies, and topographic effects in P1, to Go stimulus repetitions. Manipulations of inhibitory load through increasingGo before NoGo stimuli resulted in incremental increases in N1, P2 and N2 latencies. Several additional ERP and RT measures showed quadratic effects, with indications of facilitation or inhibition which reversed towards the end of longer stimulus trains. The results suggest that both facilitatory and inhibitory processes underlie performance in the Go/NoGo task. As Go stimuli are typically more frequently repeated than NoGo stimuli, the two processes may be confounded when sequence effects are not considered. Additionally, analysing stimuli by context indicates that the timing of the Go-P3 latency is closely related to responses, and the prolongation of N1, P2 and N2 with increasing difficulty of inhibition supports a possible relation of these components to inhibition. trains. The results suggest that both facilitatory and inhibitory processes underlie performance in the Go/NoGo task. As Go stimuli are typically more frequently repeated than NoGo stimuli, the two processes may be confounded when sequence effects are not considered.Additionally, analysing stimuli by context indicates that the timing of the Go-P3 latency is closely related to responses, and the prolongation of N1, P2 and N2 with increasing difficulty of inhibition supports a possible relation of these components to inhibition.

show abstract

“…The P3 component in Nogo condition has been linked to inhibition by many studies (Donkers and Van Boxtel, 2004;Albert et al, 2013;Smith et al, 2006). In inhibitory tasks the P3 generators have usually been located in the right frontal lobe (Strik et al, 1998;Enriquez-Geppert et al, 2010;Kropotov et al, 2011), especially the inferior-frontal cortex and the supplementary motor cortex.…”

Section: Erps and Inhibitory Control 421 The N2 And P3 Components Imentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Nogo P3, on the other hand, is maximal fronto-centrally (Bokura et al, 2001;Tekok-Kilic et al, 2001;Johnstone et al 2007;Jonkman, 2006;Smith, 2011). It may be specific to the inhibition process, as suggested by an increasing number of studies (Albert et al, 2013;Donkers and Van Boxtel, 2004;Smith et al, 2006;Smith et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Atypical brain activation in children who stutter in a visual Go/Nogo task: An ERP study

Piispala

Määttä

Pääkkönen

et al. 2017

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite this article as: Piispala, J., Mä ättä, S., Pä äkkönen, A., Bloigu, R., Kallio, M., Jansson-Verkasalo, E., Atypical brain activation in children who stutter in a visual Go/Nogo task: An ERP study, Clinical Neurophysiology (2016), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph. 2016.11.006 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Atypical brain activation in children who stutter in a visual Go/Nogo task: An ERP study Event related potential, Go/Nogo, children, stuttering, stimulus evaluation, inhibitory control. Highlights 1. Children with stutter (CWS) show atypical brain activation compared to typically developing children (TDC) in a visual Go/Nogo task especially in the right frontal area.2. CWS had prolonged N2 in both conditions while the Nogo P3 component was diminished compared to TDC.3. Stimulus classification and/or inhibitory control may operate abnormally in the CWS. AbstractObjective: The aim of the study was to investigate inhibitory control by evaluating possible differences in the strength and distribution of the brain activity in a visual Go/Nogo task in children who stutter (CWS) compared to typically developing children (TDC).Methods: Eleven CWS and 19 TDC participated. Event related potentials (ERP) were recorded using a 64-channel EEG-cap during an equiprobable visual Go/Nogo task. The global field power (GFP) as well as the mean amplitudes in the P3 time frame were compared between groups. Additionally, the potential maps of the groups were investigated visually in the N2 and P3 time windows.Results: The groups differed significantly in the right frontal area especially in the Nogo condition Conclusions: The CWS show atypical brain activation compared to the TDC in a Go/Nogo task as indexed by the excessive N2-related activity in both conditions and reduced P3-related activity in Nogo condition.Significance: These findings indicate atypical stimulus evaluation and response inhibition processes in CWS.

show abstract

Effects of pre-stimulus processing on subsequent events in a warned Go/NoGo paradigm: Response preparation, execution and inhibition

Cited by 135 publications

References 67 publications

Effects of temporal trial-by-trial cuing on early and late stages of auditory processing: Evidence from event-related potentials

Effects of temporal trial-by-trial cuing on early and late stages of auditory processing: Evidence from event-related potentials

Sequence effects in the Go/NoGo task: Inhibition and facilitation

Atypical brain activation in children who stutter in a visual Go/Nogo task: An ERP study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About