Beyond the “Bereitschaftspotential”: Action preparation behind cognitive functions

Russo, Francesco Di; Berchicci, Marika; Bozzacchi, Chiara; Perri, Rinaldo Livio; Pitzalis, Sabrina; Spinelli, Donatella

doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.04.019

Cited by 120 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 224 publications

(272 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

102

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The prefrontal activity with negative polarity has been mainly found in discriminative response tasks (DRT, resembling the go/no‐go task), and its ERP correlate was named prefrontal negativity (pN; e.g., Berchicci, Lucci, Pesce, Spinelli, & Di Russo, ) and was associated to inhibitory and attentional control within the bilateral inferior frontal gyrus (iFg). This literature was recently reviewed by Di Russo et al ().…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, in a recent study of our research group (Berchicci et al, ), we discussed whether the BP in externally triggered tasks may be an epiphenomenon due to the descending phase (return to baseline from the positive peak) of the P3 evoked by the preceding stimulus (s‐1) or a peculiar component associated with the preparation for the current stimulus (s). This doubt was raised not only from the similar topography of these two components, but also by considering that interstimulus interval (ISI), used in many of these studies on preparatory activity, had a mean of 1,500 ms (ISI range 1,000–2,000 ms; reviewed in Di Russo et al, ). Since in these studies the P3 peaks at approximately 500 ms poststimulus and the baseline for prestimulus activities is computed around 1,000 ms before stimulus onset, it follows that the interval for baseline computation of the BP (s trial) overlaps (on average) with the P3 peak of the previous (s‐1) stimulus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The independency of the Bereitschaftspotential from previous stimulus‐locked P3 in visuomotor response tasks

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Bereitschaftspotential (BP) and the P3 are well‐known ERPs usually observed during self‐paced and externally triggered tasks. Recently, the BP was also detected in externally triggered tasks before stimulus onset. However, doubts have been raised about the authenticity of the BP in these tasks due to possible overlaps with the previous trial P3 (hereinafter s‐1 P3). Here, we aim to test the authenticity of the BP in externally triggered tasks by comparing ERPs obtained during two visuomotor response tasks with different interstimulus intervals (ISIs) allowing (short‐ISI; 1,000–2,000 ms) or not (long‐ISI; 2,000–4,000 ms) P3‐BP overlaps. In line with previous research, we hypothesize that BP and the s‐1 P3 contribute independently to the scalp‐detected activities during these tasks. ERPs were recorded from 14 healthy participants during the short‐ISI and long‐ISI visuomotor response tasks. Amplitudes and latencies of pre‐ (BP and pN) and poststimulus ERP components (P1, pN1, pP1, N1, pP2, dpP2, N2, P3) were compared between conditions. No effect of ISI was found on the amplitude of any pre‐ and poststimulus components. In contrast, longer ISI is associated with earlier onsets of the BP and pN components. In visuomotor response tasks, the BP is independent from the P3 elicited by the previous trial (s‐1 P3), even using relatively short ISI. Since the different ISIs did not affect the amplitude of the BP and the P3 components, we conclude that also a short ISI can be adopted safely and conveniently to keep a reasonable duration of the overall experiment.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The independency of the Bereitschaftspotential from previous stimulus‐locked P3 in visuomotor response tasks

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A second possible explanation is that the observed effect is not driven by an increase of motor preparatory activity in premotor and parietal areas but rather to inhibitory prefrontal activity (Di Russo et al 2017). Notably, it can be suggested that uncued actions are not less prepared than cued actions and that the longer reaction times for uncued actions are due to the inhibition of the key-press that participants are not required to perform until the final selection of the correct movement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Notably, it can be suggested that uncued actions are not less prepared than cued actions and that the longer reaction times for uncued actions are due to the inhibition of the key-press that participants are not required to perform until the final selection of the correct movement. This would be associated to inhibitory activity in the prefrontal cortex rather than to an increase of motor preparation in premotor areas (Di Russo et al 2017). Further studies combining brain imaging and behavioral methods are required to define the role of motor preparation and action inhibition in the effect observed here.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specificity of action selection modulates the perceived temporal order of action and sensory events

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The perceived temporal order of actions and changes in the environment is crucial for our inferences of causality. Sensory events presented shortly after an action are more likely considered as self-generated compared to the same events occurring before action execution. However, the estimation of when an action or a sensory change occurred is a challenge for the human brain. This estimation is formed from available sensory information combined with internal representations. Researchers suggested that internal signals associated with action preparation drive our awareness of initiating an action. This study aimed to directly investigate this hypothesis. Participants performed a speeded action (left or right key-press) in response to a go-signal (left or right arrow). A flash was presented at different time points around the time of the action, and participants judged whether it was simultaneous with the action or not. To investigate the role of action preparation in time perception, we compared trials where a cue indicated which action to perform in response to a later go signal presentation, and trials with a neutral cue where participants did not know until the time of the go signal which action to perform. We observed that a flash presented before the action was reported as simultaneous with the action more frequently when actions were cued than when they were uncued. This difference was not observed when the action was replaced by a tactile stimulation. These results indicate that precued actions are experienced earlier in time compared to unprepared actions. Further, this difference is not due to mere non-motor expectation of an event. The experience of initiating an action is driven by action preparation process: when we know what to do, actions are perceived ahead of time.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00221-018-5292-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…In fact, as similar in latency but opposite in polarity, one could argue that the pN1 and the pP1 represent the other side (or the subcomponents) of the dipolar activity of the posterior P1 and N1. However, this was not the case, as documented by several investigations revealing a number of anatomo‐functional dissociations of prefrontal and posterior ERPs, as follows: (i) the neural substrates of the concomitant prefrontal and occipital ERPs are different, (ii) the prefrontal ERPs are multimodal and not specific for vision, (iii) the anterior complex of the pN1‐pP1‐pP2 ERPs and the complex of the classic P1‐N1‐P2 are differently affected by perceptual and cognitive factors, (iv) activity of the purely endogenous pP2 emerges even in absence of percepts, and (v) visual ERPs emerge in patients with selective deficit of visual awareness, but prefrontal ERPs do not (for comprehensive reviews on these points, see Di Russo et al, ; Perri & Di Russo, ; Ragazzoni et al, ; Sanchez‐Lopez et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrophysiological evidence of sustained spatial attention effects over anterior cortex: Possible contribution of the anterior insula

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial attention can improve performance in terms of speed and accuracy; this advantage may be mediated by brain processes at both poststimulus (reactive) and prestimulus (proactive) stages. Here, we studied how visuospatial attention affects both proactive and reactive brain functions using event‐related potentials (ERPs). At reactive stage, effects of attention on parietal‐occipital components are well documented; little data are available on anterior components. Seventeen participants performed simple and discriminative response tasks, while voluntarily and steadily attending either the left or right visual hemifield throughout one block. Response speed was faster for the attended side. At ERP level, attending to one hemifield did not produce lateralization of proactive components—that is, the BP and the pN. As for poststimulus components, we confirmed the well‐known amplitude effects on the P1, N1, and P3. More interesting are results for the prefrontal components previously neglected in tasks modulating spatial attention. Previous studies suggest that these components reflect perceptual and sensory‐motor awareness (pN1 and pP1 components), and stimulus‐response mapping (pP2 component) associated to anterior insular activity. Spatial attention enhanced the pN1 and the pP1 amplitude but had no effect on the pP2. Overall, results extend knowledge on spatial attention, showing that sustained spatial attention affects the activity of anterior areas, such as the anterior insula, in addition to the known influence on occipital‐parietal areas. Top‐down spatial attention is likely mediated by increased sensory and sensory‐motor awareness for attended events; this effect is evident in reactive, not proactive, brain activity.

show abstract

Beyond the “Bereitschaftspotential”: Action preparation behind cognitive functions

Cited by 120 publications

References 224 publications

The independency of the Bereitschaftspotential from previous stimulus‐locked P3 in visuomotor response tasks

The independency of the Bereitschaftspotential from previous stimulus‐locked P3 in visuomotor response tasks

Specificity of action selection modulates the perceived temporal order of action and sensory events

Electrophysiological evidence of sustained spatial attention effects over anterior cortex: Possible contribution of the anterior insula

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About