Relationship of slow potential changes to response speed and motivation in man

Waszak, Michael; Obrist, Walter D.

doi:10.1016/0013-4694(69)90163-1

Cited by 51 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, the correlation between RT and late CNV at Cz in this study, r = .367, is remarkably close to that reported in a literature summary by Rebert and Tecce (1973), r = .365, supporting the idea of a weak but consistent relationship between the level of preparation for a motor response and the speed of that response. The lack of significance in other amplitude measures is mostly in line with studies reviewed earlier: as with the present between-subjects data, no significant within-subjects relationships between N1/P2 and RT were found by Hillyard (1969), Waszak and Obrist (1969) and Näätänen and Gaillard (1974). However, while some researchers found that larger early CNV amplitude was linked to faster reaction times (Connor and Lang, 1969;Gaillard, 1976;Haagh and Brunia, 1985), and others found no relationship (Rohrbaugh et al, 1976;Brunia and Vingerhoets, 1980;Wascher et al, 1996;Werre et al, 2001), our regression coefficients indicated that a smaller early CNV was related to fast responding, although the unique contribution of this measure was not significant.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…In this study, there was a tendency for a late CNV increase in the Fast group across the scalp, particularly so in the frontal region, suggesting that between-subject relationships do exist between late CNV and mean RT. Nevertheless, the results also imply that the relationship between RT and late CNV at Cz is weaker between-than within-subjects: in this study, the late CNV at Cz showed no significant difference between groups ( F = 2.0, p > .1), while in the within-subjects studies, the same analyses at Cz have been significant (Hillyard, 1969;Waszak and Obrist, 1969;Lacey and Lacey, 1970;Haagh and Brunia, 1985). Thus, it appears that while late CNV group differences are significant, if one considers topography, those fast vs. slow differences appear to be smaller between-than within-subjects.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 64%

“…Previous reports suggest larger early CNV is related to faster reaction times, whether using correlational techniques (Gaillard, 1976), within-subject comparisons of fast vs. slow trials (Haagh and Brunia, 1985), or between-subjects analyses (Connor and Lang, 1969). However, the within-subject relationships between RT and both N1 and P2 to the warning stimulus do not appear significant (Hillyard, 1969;Waszak and Obrist, 1969;Näätä-nen and Gaillard, 1974;Haagh and Brunia, 1985). Hence, one aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between reaction time and components of the ERP during the foreperiod, both in discrete analyses (via a median split of participants' mean RT to create groups of Fast and Slow responders) and using multiple regression.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 64%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Smith¹,

Johnstone²,

Barry³

2006

International Journal of Psychophysiology

135

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cued Go/NoGo task elicits response preparation during the foreperiod, and, depending on the S2 signal, either response execution or inhibition. This study aimed to determine how processes in the foreperiod might affect or predict post-S2 processing. Thirty-two adults participated in a cued Go/NoGo task (50% Go), with a median split of mean RT producing "Fast" and "Slow" groups. ERP measures were subjected to both ANOVA and regression techniques. There were no differences in the NoGo N2 effect related to response speed, nor was the effect related to pre-S2 processes. The anterior shift of the NoGo P3 was larger in the Fast group, and while the late CNV was associated with the absolute amplitude of both Go and NoGo P3, it was not related to the anterior-posterior Go/NoGo differences. Together, these data suggest that the inhibitory process may be reflected in the NoGo P3 effect, rather than the NoGo N2 effect.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 64%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 64%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Smith¹,

Johnstone²,

Barry³

2006

International Journal of Psychophysiology

135

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This phenomenon is also called "positive-after-effect"" in the usual CNV paradigm (Cohen & Walter, 1966) as observed in our S1-S2M paradigm. Waszak and Obrist (1969) interpreted this positivity as an inhibitory process and observed a larger positivity when no motor response followed S2 (the imperative stimulus). The functional significance of this positive component is probably that of reafferent activity evoked by the movement, originating from peripheral receptors (Vaughan.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Topography of Event‐Related Slow Potentials During Reflex Movement (Ankle Jerk) Conditioning

et al. 1982

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The morphology and scalp distribution of slow negative potentials elicited in type I conditioning, requiring no instruction, were studied. The paradigm involved the presentation of a conditioned stimulus (SI), followed 1500 msec later by an unconditioned stimulus (H). the electrical stimulation of the popliteal nerve evoking an ankle jerk (Hoffmann reflex).Our topographical data showed that two components develop in the Interstimulus interval Sl-H: a large fronto-central early component followed by a late centro-parietal negative component which precedes the H-reflex movement. This negative shift terminates abruptly in a positivity post-H-reflex.These anticipatory components show similarities, particularly at the parietal site, to slow waves elicited in a CNV paradigm involving the presentation of an indicative stimulus (SI) followed by an imperative stimulus (S2) requiring an operant motor response.These results are discussed in terms of conditioning, arousal, and early preparatory and time estimation processes.

show abstract

“…Therefore it cannot easily be concluded that they all depend on an unitary physiological mechanism arising from a single cerebral generator system. Some authors (Waszak and Obrist 1969;Karlin et al 1970) noted an augmentation of localized late responses in situations with an inhibitory context. Papakostopoulos et al (1976) andMcCallum et al (1976) explain these findings as being due to an increased spatial distribution in the cortex, resulting in an augmentation of amplitude when recorded from the scalp, and they interpret late responses as electrophysiologically indicating an inhibitory brain function.…”

Section: Late Potentialsmentioning

confidence: 99%