» Articles » PMID: 15480606

Individual Differences Discriminate Event-related Potentials but Not Performance During Response Inhibition

Overview
Journal Exp Brain Res
Specialty Neurology
Date 2004 Oct 14
PMID 15480606
Citations 43
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded from 20 normal participants while they completed a Go/NoGo response inhibition task. Previous ERP studies have implicated the N2 and P3 waveforms as the main indices of processing in this task, and functional brain imaging has shown parietal, prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices to be involved in response inhibition. 32-channel ERP analysis revealed amplitude differences in the N2/P3 components when stimuli that required a button-press (Go stimuli) were compared with stimuli for which the response had to be withheld (No-Go stimuli), and in N2 and P3 latencies when successful withholds to No-Go stimuli were compared with unsuccessful attempts to inhibit. Further differences in the N2/P3 complex emerged when participants were grouped in terms of a measure of absentmindedness (the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire, CFQ); larger and earlier components were found for high CFQ respondents. We conclude that the latencies of the N2 and P3 may be the critical indicators of active inhibitory processes for this task, suggesting that a pattern of sequential activation rather than altered activity level in key structures may mediate success on the task. In addition, highly absentminded participants exhibited larger components for errors than did less absentminded participants when performing at the same level, which implies that the absentminded may require greater activity in the neural substrates of response inhibition in order to accomplish this task at a comparable level of performance to less absentminded participants.

Citing Articles

Extended Cognitive Load Induces Fast Neural Responses Leading to Commission Errors.

Taddeini F, Avvenuti G, Vergani A, Carpaneto J, Setti F, Bergamo D eNeuro. 2025; 12(2).

PMID: 39870524 PMC: 11810548. DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0354-24.2024.


Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the differential effect of reward prospect on response selection and inhibition.

Koyun A, Stock A, Beste C Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):10903.

PMID: 37407656 PMC: 10322977. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-37524-z.


The impact of a rosemary containing drink on event-related potential neural markers of sustained attention.

Riby L, Edwards S, McDonald H, Moss M PLoS One. 2023; 18(6):e0286113.

PMID: 37262036 PMC: 10234515. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286113.


The ups and downs of bilingualism: A review of the literature on executive control using event-related potentials.

Antoniou K Psychon Bull Rev. 2023; 30(4):1187-1226.

PMID: 36703091 DOI: 10.3758/s13423-023-02245-x.


Young adults who improve performance during dual-task walking show more flexible reallocation of cognitive resources: a mobile brain-body imaging (MoBI) study.

Patelaki E, Foxe J, Mazurek K, Freedman E Cereb Cortex. 2022; 33(6):2573-2592.

PMID: 35661873 PMC: 10016048. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhac227.


References
1.
Roche R, OMara S . Behavioural and electrophysiological correlates of visuomotor learning during a visual search task. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2002; 15(2):127-36. DOI: 10.1016/s0926-6410(02)00146-5. View

2.
Pfefferbaum A, Ford J, Weller B, KOPELL B . ERPs to response production and inhibition. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1985; 60(5):423-34. DOI: 10.1016/0013-4694(85)91017-x. View

3.
Jodo E, Kayama Y . Relation of a negative ERP component to response inhibition in a Go/No-go task. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1992; 82(6):477-82. DOI: 10.1016/0013-4694(92)90054-l. View

4.
Carter C, Braver T, Barch D, Botvinick M, Noll D, Cohen J . Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance. Science. 1998; 280(5364):747-9. DOI: 10.1126/science.280.5364.747. View

5.
Falkenstein M, Hoormann J, Hohnsbein J . ERP components in Go/Nogo tasks and their relation to inhibition. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1999; 101(2-3):267-91. DOI: 10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00008-6. View