Source analysis of the N2 in a cued Go/NoGo task

Bekker, Evelijne M.; Kenemans, J. Leon; Verbaten, Marinus N.

doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.08.011

Cited by 229 publications

(218 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

185

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Alongside amplitude effects, we found parallel differences in N2 latency, with longer N2 latencies for No-go trials and at left frontal electrodes. However, in adults N2 differences are typically observed at midline (Bekker, Kenemans, & Verbaten, 2005; Jonkman et al, 2007) or right (Bokura et al, 2001) electrode sites, whereas in our study the effect was left lateralized. Interestingly, in a previous study with 7- to 16-year-olds, both younger participants and participants who performed poorly exhibited greater left lateralization of the No-go N2 (Lamm, Zelazo, & Lewis, 2006).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 72%

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

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 72%

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

show abstract

“…In addition, Kiefer et al [1998] detected bilateral sources in the inferior prefrontal and left premotor regions. More recently, Bekker et al [2005] suggested that the NoGo-N2 generator is located in the anterior cingulate cortex. Moreover, neuroimaging studies have revealed increased activity in the orbitofrontal cortex in healthy controls during the Go/NoGo task [Casey et al, 1997].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrophysiological correlates of behavioral response inhibition in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder

Kim

Yoo

et al. 2006

Depress. Anxiety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we have attempted to determine the electrophysiological correlates of behavioral response inhibition in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). To evaluate response inhibition ability, we have used the Go/NoGo task and measured N2 and P3 event-related potential (ERP) components. Both the OCD and control groups exhibited greater and more frontally distributed N2 and P3 amplitudes in the NoGo condition compared to what we observed in the Go condition. However, the patients with OCD also manifested reduced NoGo-N2 and Go-N2 amplitudes at the frontocentral electrode sites compared to the controls. In addition, the NoGo-N2 amplitudes were more posteriorly distributed in patients with OCD than in controls. The NoGo-N2 amplitudes and latencies measured at the central sites were also negatively correlated with the obsession score on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS). The OCD and control groups were comparable with regard to Go-P3 and NoGo-P3 amplitude and latencies. Our findings suggest dysfunctions in frontal regions mediating response inhibition in OCD, consistent with the involvement of response inhibition in the pathophysiology of this disorder. In addition, NoGo-N2 seems to result in more accurate response inhibition measurements in patients with OCD than does NoGo-P3. Depression and Anxiety 24:22-31, 2007.

show abstract

“…This fi nding is signifi cant because ERP studies examining motor stopping consistently report enhanced N2 components for stopping, such as the no-go N2 (Bekker et al, 2005 ;Bokura et al, 2001 ;Donkers & van Boxtel, 2004 ;Eimer, 1993 ;Falkenstein et al, 1999 ;Garavan et al, 2002 ) and the stop signal N2 (Band & van Boxtel, 1999 ;Logan et al, 1994 ;Schmajuk et al, 2006 ;van Boxtel et al, 2001 ;Ramautar et al, 2004 ) . 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.…”

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

Source analysis of the N2 in a cued Go/NoGo task

Cited by 229 publications

References 36 publications

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

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

Electrophysiological correlates of behavioral response inhibition in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder

Towards a Cognitive and Neurobiological Model of Motivated Forgetting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About