N2, P3 and the lateralized readiness potential in a nogo task involving selective response priming

Kopp, Bruno; Mattler, Uwe; Goertz, Ralf; Rist, Fred

doi:10.1016/0921-884x(96)95617-9

Cited by 311 publications

(233 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

204

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Mecklinger et al ( 2009 ) found signifi cantly larger N2 for Suppress items in comparison to Respond items, and, importantly found this effect to be especially pronounced for Suppress items that were later forgotten on an independent probe test. Prior work on the motor No-Go N2 suggest that it may refl ect either inhibition of the motor act itself (Kopp et al, 1996 ) , detection of response confl ict (Falkenstein, 2006 ) or both. The source of the effect is thought to be the anterior cingulate cortex, but the lateral prefrontal cortex has also been suggested (Lavric et al, 2004 ) , consistent with brain areas involved in retrieval suppression.…”

Section: Electrophsyiological Indices Of Retrieval Suppressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Cognitive and Neurobiological Model of Motivated Forgetting

Anderson

Huddleston

2011

Nebraska Symposium on Motivation

153

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically, research on forgetting has been dominated by the assumption that forgetting is passive, refl ecting decay, interference, and changes in context. This emphasis arises from the pervasive assumption that forgetting is a negative outcome. Here, we present a functional view of forgetting in which the fate of experience in memory is determined as much by motivational forces that dictate the focus of attention as it is by passive factors. A central tool of motivated forgetting is retrieval suppression, a process whereby people shut down episodic retrieval to control awareness. We review behavioral, neurobiological, and clinical research and show that retrieval suppression leads us to forget suppressed experiences. We discuss key questions necessary to address to develop this model, relationships to other forgetting phenomena, and the implications of this research for understanding recovered memories. This work provides a foundation for understanding how motivational forces infl uence what we remember of life experience.

show abstract

Section: Electrophsyiological Indices Of Retrieval Suppressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Cognitive and Neurobiological Model of Motivated Forgetting

Anderson

Huddleston

2011

Nebraska Symposium on Motivation

153

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, neither study successfully dissociated inhibition and conflict: the congruence of the array differed between go and no-go stimuli and in Brydges et al, (2012) the stimuli also differed in colour. Kopp, Mattler, Goertz, & Rist (1996) compared no-go trials in which a central no-go stimulus was flanked either by stimuli associated with a left/right hand response (specific primes) or by neutral stimuli (non-specific primes). The N2 was larger to no-go stimuli flanked by specific primes which the authors suggested reflected inhibition of the primed response; however there was no direct comparison between no-go and go flanker trials and it could be argued that the specific prime induced conflict between competing response options rather than inhibition of the primed response.…”

Section: The N2 Event-related Potentialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential modulation of the N2 and P3 event-related potentials by response conflict and inhibition

Groom

Cragg

2015

Brain and Cognition

155

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Developing reliable and specific neural markers of cognitive processes is essential to improve understanding of healthy and atypical brain function. Despite extensive research there remains uncertainty as to whether two electrophysiological markers of cognitive control, the N2 and P3, are better conceptualised as markers of response inhibition or response conflict. The present study aimed to directly compare the effects of response inhibition and response conflict on the N2 and P3 event-related potentials, withinsubjects. Method:A novel hybrid go/no-go flanker task was performed by 19 healthy adults aged 18 to 25 years while EEG data were collected. The response congruence of a central target stimulus and 4 flanking stimuli was manipulated between trials to vary the degree of response conflict. Response inhibition was required on a proportion of trials. N2 amplitude was measured at two frontal electrode sites; P3 amplitude was measured at 4 midline electrode sites.Results: N2 amplitude was greater on incongruent than congruent trials but was not enhanced by response inhibition when the stimulus array was congruent. P3 amplitude was greater on trials requiring response inhibition; this effect was more pronounced at frontal electrodes. P3 amplitude was also enhanced on incongruent compared with congruent trials. Discussion:The findings support a role for N2 amplitude as a marker of response conflict and for the frontal shift of the P3 as a marker of response inhibition. This paradigm could be applied to clinical groups to help clarify the precise nature of impaired action control in disorders such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders (ADHD).3

show abstract

“…Cognitive processes like response inhibition occur on a millisecond time scale, and electroencephalography (EEG) is one of the few neuroimaging methods with the necessary temporal resolution to investigate the neural underpinnings of these processes. Two ERP components, the N2 and P3, have been consistently identified as markers of inhibitory processes: The N2 is a negative peak observed at frontal electrode sites between 200 and 500 ms after stimulus onset (Carter & Van Veen, 2007; Falkenstein, Hoormann, & Hohnsbein, 1999; Jonkman, Sniedt, & Kemner, 2007); the P3 is a positive peak observed at frontocentral electrode sites between 300 and 600 ms after stimulus onset (Bokura, Yamaguchi, & Kobayashi, 2001; Eimer, 1993; Kopp, Mattler, Goertz, & Rist, 1996). In GNG paradigms, the amplitude and latency of these two ERP components differ between No-go trials, where inhibition is required, and Go trials, where it is not (Bokura et al, 2001; Falkenstein et al, 1999; Fallgatter & Strik, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural Correlates of Response Inhibition in Early Childhood: Evidence From a Go/No-Go Task

Rahman

Carroll

Espy

et al. 2017

Developmental Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the neural correlates underlying response inhibition in early childhood. Five-year-old children completed a Go/No-go task with or without time pressure (Fast vs. Slow condition) while scalp EEG was recorded. On No-go trials where inhibition was required, the left frontal N2 and posterior P3 were enhanced relative to Go trials. Time pressure was detrimental to behavioral performance and modulated the early-occurring P1 component. The topography of ERPs related to response inhibition differed from patterns typically seen in adults, and may indicate a compensatory mechanism to make up for immature inhibition networks in children.

show abstract

N2, P3 and the lateralized readiness potential in a nogo task involving selective response priming

Cited by 311 publications

References 33 publications

Towards a Cognitive and Neurobiological Model of Motivated Forgetting

Towards a Cognitive and Neurobiological Model of Motivated Forgetting

Differential modulation of the N2 and P3 event-related potentials by response conflict and inhibition

Neural Correlates of Response Inhibition in Early Childhood: Evidence From a Go/No-Go Task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About