Conflict adaptation within but not across NoGo decision criteria: Event-related-potential evidence of specificity in the contextual modulation of cognitive control

Biological Psychology

Volumn 109, Issue , 2015, Pages 132-140

  Feldman, Julia L ^a   Clark, Sheri L ^a   Freitas, Antonio L ^a  

^a STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive control; Conflict adaptation; Congruence sequence effects; Go NoGo; N2; NoGo P3; Response mapping

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ACTION POTENTIAL AMPLITUDE; ADAPTATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANTERIOR CINGULATE; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; CONFLICT; CONFLICT ADAPTATION; CONTEXTUAL MODULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING CONFLICT; LATENT PERIOD; MALE; N2 AMPLITUDE; NERVOUS SYSTEM ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; NEUROMODULATION; NOGO DECISION CRITERIA; NORMAL HUMAN; P3 AMPLITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSE TIME; STATE DEPENDENT LEARNING; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL STIMULATION; ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED RESPONSE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84930937673     PISSN: 03010511     EISSN: 18736246     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.05.001     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Akçay Ç., Hazeltine E. Domain-specific conflict adaptation without feature repetitions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2011, 18:505-511. 10.3758/s13423-011-0084-y.
2. Bokura H., Yamaguchi S., Kobayashi S. Event-related potentials for response inhibition in Parkinson's disease. Neuropsychologia 2005, 43:967-975. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.08.010.
3. Botvinick M.M., Braver T.S., Barch D.M., Carter C.S., Cohen J.D. Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review 2001, 108:624-652. 10.1037//0033-295X.I08.3.624.
4. Braem S., Abrahamse E.L., Duthoo W., Notebaert W. What determines the specificity of conflict adaptation? A review, critical analysis, and proposed synthesis. Frontiers in Psychology 2014, 5. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01134.
5. Braem S., Verguts T., Notebaert W. Conflict adaptation by means of associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2011, 37:1662-1666. 10.1037/a0024385.
6. Brown S.B., Van Steenbergen H., Kedar T., Nieuwenhuis S. Effects of arousal on cognitive control: Empirical tests of the conflict-modulated Hebbian-learning hypothesis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2014, 8. 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00023.
7. Clayson P.E., Larson M.J. Conflict adaptation and sequential trial effects: Support for the conflict monitoring theory. Neuropsychologia 2011, 49:1953-1961. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.03.023.
8. Delorme A., Makeig S. EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 2004, 134:9-21. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009.
9. Donkers F.C., van Boxtel G.J. The N2 in go/NoGo tasks reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition. Brain and Cognition 2004, 56:165-176. 10.1016/j.bandc.2004.04.005.
10. Durston S., Thomas K.M., Worden M.S., Yang Y., Casey B.J. The effect of preceding context on inhibition: An event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage 2002, 16:449-453. 10.1006/nimg.2002.1074.
11. Egner T. Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2008, 12:374-380. 10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.001.
12. Falkenstein M., Hoormann J., Hohnsbein J. ERP components in Go/NoGo tasks and their relation to inhibition. Acta Psychologica 1999, 101:267-291. 10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00008-6.
13. Fallgatter A.J., Ehlis A.C., Seifert J., Strik W.K., Scheuerpflug P., Zillessen K.E., et al. Altered response control and anterior cingulate function in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder boys. Clinical Neurophysiology 2004, 115:973-981. 10.1016/j.clinph.2003.11.036.
14. Fleming K.A., Bartholow B.D. Alcohol cues, approach bias, and inhibitory control: Applying a dual process model of addiction to alcohol sensitivity. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 2014, 28:85. 10.1037/a0031565.
15. Freitas A.L., Azizian A., Leung H.C., Squires N.K. Resisting recently acted-on cues: Compatibility of Go/NoGo responses to response history modulates (frontal P3) event-related potentials. Psychophysiology 2007, 44:2-10. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2006.00484.x.
16. Freitas A.L., Bahar M., Yang S., Banai R. Contextual adjustments in cognitive control across tasks. Psychological Science 2007, 18:1040-1043. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02022.x.
17. Freitas A.L., Clark S.L. Generality and specificity in cognitive control: Conflict adaptation within and across selective-attention tasks but not across selective-attention and Simon tasks. Psychological Research 2015, 79:143-162. 10.1007/s00426-014-0540-1.
18. Funes M.J., Lupiáñez J., Humphreys G. Analyzing the generality of conflict adaptation effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2010, 36:147-161. 10.1037/a0017598.
19. Greenhouse S.W., Geisser S. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika 1959, 24:95-112. 10.1007/BF02289823.
20. Hommel B. Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon Effect: Toward an empirical clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1995, 21:764-775. 10.1037/0096-1523.21.4.764.
21. Hommel B. Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2004, 8:494-500. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007.
22. Inoue Y., Inagaki M., Gunji A., Furushima W., Okada H., Sasaki H., et al. Altered effect of preceding response execution on inhibitory processing in children with AD/HD: An ERP study. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2010, 77:118-125. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2010.05.002.
23. Jodo E., Kayama Y. Relation of a negative ERP component to response inhibition in a Go/NoGo task. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1992, 82:477-482. 10.1016/0013-4694(92)90054-L.
24. Jonkman L.M., Lansbergen M., Stauder J.E.A. Developmental differences in behavioral and event-related brain responses associated with response preparation and inhibition in a go/NoGo task. Psychophysiology 2003, 40:752-761. 10.1111/1469-8986.00075.
25. Kamarajan C., Porjesz B., Jones K.A., Choi K., Chorlian D.B., Padmanabhapillai A., et al. Alcoholism is a disinhibitory disorder: Neurophysiological evidence from a Go/NoGo task. Biological Psychology 2005, 69:353-373. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.08.004.
26. Kan I.P., Teubner-Rhodes S., Drummey A.B., Nutile L., Krupa L., Novick J.M. To adapt or not to adapt: The question of domain-general cognitive control. Cognition 2013, 129:637-651. 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.09.001.
27. Kiesel A., Kunde W., Hoffmann J. Evidence for task-specific resolution of response conflict. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2006, 13:800-806. 10.3758/BF03194000.
28. Kim S., Cho Y.S. Congruency sequence effect without feature integration and contingency learning. Acta Psychologica 2014, 149:60-68. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.03.004.
29. Kleiman T., Hassin R.R., Trope Y. The control-freak mind: Stereotypical biases are eliminated following conflict-activated cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2014, 143:498-503. 10.1037/a0033047.
30. Kropotov J.D., Ponomarev V.A., Hollup S., Mueller A. Dissociating action inhibition, conflict monitoring and sensory mismatch into independent components of event related potentials in GO/NOGO task. NeuroImage 2011, 57:565-575. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.04.060.
31. Kunde W., Wühr P. Sequential modulations of correspondence effects across spatial dimensions and tasks. Memory & Cognition 2006, 34:356-367. 10.3758/BF03193413.
32. Li Q., Wang K., Nan W., Zheng Y., Wu H., Wang H., et al. Electrophysiological dynamics reveal distinct processing of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response conflicts. Psychophysiology 2014, 1-10. 10.1111/psyp.12382.
33. Mayr U., Awh E., Laurey P. Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience 2003, 6:450-452. 10.1038/nn1051.
34. Nieuwenhuis S., Yeung N., Van Den Wildenberg W., Ridderinkhof K.R. Electrophysiological correlates of anterior cingulate function in a go/NoGo task: Effects of response conflict and trial type frequency. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 2003, 3:17-26. 10.3758/CABN.3.1.17.
35. Notebaert W., Verguts T. Dissociating conflict adaptation from feature integration: A multiple regression approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2007, 33:1256-1260. 10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1256.
36. Notebaert W., Verguts T. Cognitive control acts locally. Cognition 2008, 106:1071-1080. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.011.
37. Pfefferbaum A., Ford J.M., Weller B.J., Kopell B.S. ERPs to response production inhibition. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1985, 60:423-434. 10.1016/0013-4694(85)91017-X.
38. Randall W.M., Smith J.L. Conflict and inhibition in the cued-Go/NoGo task. Clinical Neurophysiology 2011, 122:2400-2407. 10.1016/j.clinph.2011.05.012.
39. Roberts L.E., Rau H., Lutzenberger W., Birbaumer N. Mapping P300 waves onto and inhibition: Go/No-Go discrimination. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section 1994, 92:44-55. 10.1016/0168-5597(94)90006-X.
40. Salisbury D.F., Griggs C.B., Shenton M.E., McCarley R.W. The NoGo P300 'anteriorization' effect and response inhibition. Clinical Neurophysiology 2004, 115:1550-1558. 10.1016/j.clinph.2004.01.028.
41. Schlaghecken F., Refaat M., Maylor E.A. Multiple systems for cognitive control: Evidence from a hybrid prime-Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2011, 37:1542-1553. 10.1037/a0024327.
42. Schmidt J.R., De Houwer J. Now you see it, now you don't: Controlling for contingencies and stimulus repetitions eliminates the Gratton effect. Acta Psychologica 2011, 138:176-186. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.06.002.
43. Sebanz N., Knoblich G., Prinz W., Wascher E. Twin peaks: An ERP study of action planning and control in coacting individuals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2006, 18:859-870. 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.5.859.
44. Smith J.L., Johnstone S.J., Barry R.J. Response priming in the Go/NoGo task: The N2 reflects neither inhibition nor conflict. Clinical Neurophysiology 2007, 118:343-355. 10.1016/j.clinph.2006.09.027.
45. 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. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2010, 75:217-226. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.11.002.
46. Stürmer B., Seiss E., Leuthold H. Executive control in the Simon task: A dual-task examination of response priming and its suppression. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 2005, 17:590-618. 10.1080/09541440540000077.
47. Thomas S.J., Gonsalvez C.J., Johnstone S.J. How specific are inhibitory deficits to obsessive-compulsive disorder? A neurophysiological comparison with panic disorder. Clinical Neurophysiology 2014, 125:463-475. 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.08.018.
48. Verbruggen F., Liefooghe B., Notebaert W., Vandierendonck A. Effects of stimulus-stimulus compatibility and stimulus-response compatibility on response inhibition. Acta Psychologica 2005, 120:307-326. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.05.003.
49. Verguts T., Notebaert W. Adaptation by binding: A learning account of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2009, 13:252-257. 10.1016/j.tics.2009.02.007.
50. Weissman D.H., Jiang J., Egner T. Determinants of congruency sequence effects without learning and memory confounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2014, 40:2022-2037. 10.1037/a0037454.
51. Wendt M., Kluwe R.H., Peters A. Sequential modulations of interference evoked by processing task-irrelevant stimulus features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2006, 32:644-667. 10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.644.
52. Yeung N., Cohen J.D. The impact of cognitive deficits on conflict monitoring predictable dissociations between the error-related negativity and N2. Psychological Science 2006, 17:164-171. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01680.x.
53. Zamorano F., Billeke P., Hurtado J.M., Lopez V., Carrasco X., Ossandon T., et al. Temporal constraints of behavioral inhibition: Relevance of inter-stimulus interval in a Go-Nogo task. PLOS ONE 2014, 9. 10.1371/journal.pone.0087232.