Modulation of ERP components by task instructions in a cued go/no‐go task

Abstract

The present study investigated how components of ERPs are modulated when participants optimize speed versus accuracy in a cued go/no-go task. Using a crossover design, 35 participants received instructions to complete the task prioritizing response speed in half of the task, and accurate responding in the other half of the task. Analysis was performed on the contingent negative variation (CNV), P3go, and P3no-go and the corresponding independent components (IC), as identified by group independent component analysis. After speed instructions, the IC CNV(late), P3go(anterior), P3no-go(early), and P3no-go(late) all had larger amplitudes than after accuracy instructions. Furthermore, both the IC P3go(posterior) and IC P3go(anterior) had shorter latencies after speed than after accuracy instructions. The results demonstrate that components derived from the CNV and P3 components are facilitated when participants optimize response speed. These findings indicate that these ERP components reflect executive processes enabling adjustment of behavior to changing demands.

High‐precision voluntary movements are largely independent of preceding vertex potentials elicited by sudden sensory events

“…The fact that MOT and accuracy were the only two parameters consistently affected suggests that participants followed the instructions received as these were the two movement features that participants were required to maximize. This is consistent with evidence showing that human subjects fine-tune their task-relevant strategies by modifying the gain of particular feature dimensions (Pfefferbaum et al 1983;Folk et al 1992;Found and Müller 1996;Schubotz and von Cramon, 2001;Aasen and Brunner, 2016), a process that has been labelled 'intentional weighting' (Memelink and Hommel, 2013). Finally, as was the case for the EEG modulations, these behavioural effects were also supramodal: there was a similar reduction in MOT and increase in movement accuracy regardless of whether the stimulus modality changed from auditory to somatosensory (Exp.…”

“…; Folk et al . ; Found and Müller ; Schubotz and von Cramon, ; Aasen and Brunner, ), a process that has been labelled ‘intentional weighting’ (Memelink and Hommel, ). Finally, as was the case for the EEG modulations, these behavioural effects were also supramodal: there was a similar reduction in MOT and increase in movement accuracy regardless of whether the stimulus modality changed from auditory to somatosensory (Exp.…”

Event-Related Potentials in a Cued Go-NoGo Task Associated with Executive Functions in Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder; A Case-Control Study

“…The N2 is a negative deflection ~200 ms after S2, and is suggested to reflect the cognitive control necessary for interference suppression and successful inhibition (Donkers and Van Boxtel, 2004; Downes et al, 2017) and thereby conflict monitoring or the degree of experienced conflict (Hammerer et al, 2010). The P3, a positive deflection ~300 ms after both stimuli (S1 and S2), has been suggested to indicate the classification of the stimulus and the selection of responses, and in NoGo trials evaluate the inhibitory process after S2 (Aasen and Brunner, 2016). P3 amplitude generally is sensitive to the amount of attentional resources engaged, and will be enhanced if the subject puts more effort into the task, but attenuated if the importance of the stimuli is unclear (e.g., if the given stimulus is target or non-target) or if the task is difficult (Polich, 1987, 2012).…”

Skill learning can be independent of speed and accuracy instructions

“…By giving explicit instructions to focus either on accuracy or speed, we managed to manipulate the overall performance of the participants, as previous non-learning cognitive tasks also did (Aasen & Brunner, 2016;Christensen, Ivkovich, & Drake, 2001;Osman et al, 2000;Ullsperger, Bylsma, & Botvinick, 2004). However, one might question if our results 20 truly reflect the effect of instructions on learning.…”

“…One aspect that may influence this measurement is whether participants focus on their speed at the expense of accuracy, or vice versa. This focus may depend on many things: the circumstances of the experiment, the fatigue or the boredom of the participant (Healy, Kole, Buck-Gengler, & Bourne, 2004;Kole, Healy, & Bourne Jr., 2008), or the explicit instructions given (Aasen & Brunner, 2016;Endrass, Schreiber, & Kathmann, 2012). To date, there is no evidence whether focusing on speed or accuracy affects only the performance during a learning task or the degree of acquired knowledge (competence) itself.…”