To go or not to go, that is the question: Do the N2 and P3 reflect stimulus- or response-related conflict?

International Journal of Psychophysiology

Volumn 82, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 143-152

  Smith, Janette L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Response conflict; Response inhibition; Stimulus mismatch; Stimulus related conflict

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONFLICT; EVOKED RESPONSE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; RESPONSE TIME; STIMULUS; STIMULUS RESPONSE;

ADULT; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); EVENT-RELATED POTENTIALS, P300; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 83555165921     PISSN: 01678760     EISSN: 18727697     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.07.019     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Band G.P.H., Ridderinkhof K.R., van der Molen M.W. Speed-accuracy modulation in case of conflict: the roles of activation and inhibition. Psychol. Res. 2003, 67:266-279.
2. Banquet J.P., Renault B., Lesevre N. Effect of task and stimulus probability on evoked potentials. Biol. Psychol. 1981, 13:203-214.
3. Bertelson P. Serial choice reaction time as a function of response versus signal-and-response repetition. Nature 1965, 206:217-218.
4. Botvinick M.M., Braver T.S., Barch D.M., Carter C.C., Cohen J.D. Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychol. Rev. 2001, 108:624-652.
5. Bruin K.J., Wijers A.A., van Staveren A.S.J. Response priming in a go/nogo task: do we have to explain the go/nogo N2 effect in terms of response activation instead of inhibition?. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2001, 112:1660-1671.
6. Chen A., Bailey K., Tiernan B.N., West R. Neural correlates of stimulus and response interference in a 2-1 mapping Stroop task. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2011, 80:129-138.
7. Donchin E., Coles M.G.H. Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating?. Behav. Brain Sci. 1988, 11:357-374.
8. Donkers F.C.L., Van Boxtel G.J.M. The N2 in go/no-go tasks reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition. Brain Cogn. 2004, 56:165-176.
9. Dudschig C., Jentzsch I. Locus of response slowing resulting from alternation-based processing interference. Psychophysiol. 2008, 45:751-758.
10. Falkenstein M., Hoormann J., Hohnsbein J. ERP components in Go/Nogo tasks and their relation to inhibition. Acta Psychol. 1999, 101:267-291.
11. Fallgatter A.J., Brandeis D., Strik W.K. A robust assessment of the NoGo-anteriorisation of P300 microstates in a cued continuous performance task. Brain Topogr. 1997, 9:295-302.
12. Folstein J.R., Van Petten C. Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: a review. Psychophysiol. 2008, 45:152-170.
13. Gehring W.J., Gratton G., Coles M.G.H., Donchin E. Probability effects on stimulus evaluation and response processes. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1992, 18:198-216.
14. Hatta A., Nishihira Y., Shimoda M., Fumoto M., Ikeda H., Takemiya T. The change of event-related potentials with choice task. Jpn. J. Phys. Fit. Sports Med. 1997, 46:405-414.
15. Ille N., Berg P., Scherg M. Artifact correction of the ongoing EEG using spatial filters based on artifact and brain signal topographies. J. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2002, 19:113-124.
16. Jentzsch I., Leuthold H. Response conflict determines sequential effects in serial response time tasks with short response-stimulus intervals. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2005, 31:731-748.
17. Jodo E., Kayama Y. Relation of a negative ERP component to response inhibition in a Go/No-go task. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1992, 82:477-482.
18. Kok A. Effects of degradation of visual stimuli on components of the event-related potential (ERP) in go/nogo reaction tasks. Biol. Psychol. 1986, 23:21-38.
19. Kok A., Ramautar J.R., De Ruiter M.B., Band G.P.H., Ridderinkhof K.R. ERP components associated with successful and unsuccessful stopping in a stop-signal task. Psychophysiol. 2004, 41:9-20.
20. Kornblum S., Hasbroucq T., Osman A. Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - a model and taxonomy. Psychol. Rev. 1990, 97:253-270.
21. Loftus G.R., Masson M.E.J. Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 1994, 1:476-490.
22. Nakata H., Inui K., Wasaka T., Tamura Y., Akatsuke K., Kida T., et al. Higher anticipated force required a stronger inhibitory process in go/nogo tasks. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2006, 117:1669-1676.
23. Nieuwenhuis S., Yeung N., van den Wildenberg W., Ridderinkhof K.R. Electrophysiological correlates of anterior cingulate function in a go/no-go task: effects of response conflict and trial type frequency. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 2003, 3:17-26.
24. Ofek E., Pratt H. Ear advantage and attention: an ERP study of auditory cued attention. Hear. Res. 2004, 189:107-118.
25. Pfefferbaum A., Ford J.M., Weller B.J., Kopell B.S. ERPs to response production and inhibition. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1985, 60:423-434.
26. Randall, W.M., Smith, J.L., in press. Conflict and inhibition in the cued-Go/NoGo task. Clin Neurophysiol. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2011.05.012.
27. Smith J.L., Johnstone S.J., Barry R.J. Effects of pre-stimulus processing on subsequent events in a warned Go/NoGo paradigm: response preparation, execution and inhibition. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2006, 61:121-133.
28. Smith J.L., Johnstone S.J., Barry R.J. Response priming in the Go/NoGo task: the N2 reflects neither inhibition nor conflict. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2007, 118:343-355.
29. Smith J.L., Smith E.A., Provost A.L., Heathcote A. Sequence effects support the conflict theory of N2 and P3 in the Go/NoGo task. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2010, 75:217-226.
30. Sterr A. Preparing not to move: does no-response priming affect advance movement preparation processes in a response priming task?. Biol. Psychol. 2006, 72:154-159.
31. Tabachnick B.G., Fidell L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics 1996, HarperCollins, New York. Third Ed.
32. van Veen V., Carter C.S. The timing of action-monitoring processes in the anterior cingulate cortex. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2002, 14:593-602.
33. Verbruggen F., Notebaert W., Liefooghe B., Vandierendonck A. Stimulus- and response-conflict-induced cognitive control in the flanker task. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2006, 13:328-333.
34. Wendt M., Heldmann M., Muente T.F., Kluwe R.H. Disentangling sequential effects of stimulus- and response-related conflict and stimulus-response repetition using brain potentials. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2007, 19:1104-1112.
35. West R., Bowry R., McConville C. Sensitivity of medial frontal cortex to response and nonresponse conflict. Psychophysiol. 2004, 41:739-748.