Conflict and inhibition differentially affect the N200/P300 complex in a combined go/nogo and stop-signal task

Enriquez‐Geppert, Stefanie; Konrad, Carsten; Pantev, Christo; Huster, René J.

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.043

Cited by 319 publications

(301 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

271

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…N2 amplitude did not differ between go and no-go trials when the target stimuli were presented within congruent (low conflict) arrays (RRR, NNN) but was significantly greater on incongruent than congruent flanker trials across trial types, supporting the assertion that this particular ERP is better conceptualised as a marker of response conflict than response 20 inhibition (Brydges et al, 2012;Donkers & van Boxtel, 2004;Enriquez-Geppert et al, 2010;Randall & Smith, 2011;Smith et al, 2010;van Veen & Carter, 2002). The task employed in the present study equated the frequency of go and no-go trials; the findings therefore provide further support for previous studies in which N2 amplitude is not enhanced on nogo trials when these are equally frequent to go trials (Donkers & van Boxtel, 2004;EnriquezGeppert et al, 2010;Nieuwenhuis et al, 2003).…”

Section: N2 Amplitudementioning

confidence: 69%

“…According to this model, the N2 is modulated in inhibitory control tasks because the ratio of go to no-go or stop trials creates conflict between the prepotent response tendency and the infrequent requirement to inhibit the response (Braver, Barch, Gray, Molfese, & Snyder, 2001), not because of inhibition per se. In support of this, N2 amplitude is greater on go than no-go trials when the ratio of go: no-go trials is reversed (Donkers & van Boxtel, 2004;Enriquez-Geppert et al, 2010;Nieuwenhuis, Yeung, van den Wildenberg, & Ridderinkhof, 2003) and on incongruent than congruent flanker trials in the visual flanker 6 task (Bartholow et al, 2005;Clayson & Larson, 2011;Purmann, Badde, Luna-Rodriguez, & Wendt, 2011). In the flanker task participants must respond to a central target stimulus while simultaneously suppressing an opposing response associated with the flanking stimuli.…”

Section: The N2 Event-related Potentialmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…In electrophysiological studies the N2 event-related potential (ERP), a fronto-central stimulus-locked component with a latency of between 200 and 350ms, has traditionally been interpreted as an index of response inhibition (Falkenstein, Hoormann, & Hohnsbein, 1999;Jodo & Kayama, 1992), defined in this context as the cancellation of a prepotent or prepared motor response. In the visual go/no-go task, in which a rapid unimanual response to a 'go' stimulus must be inhibited when an infrequent 'no-go' stimulus is presented, and in the stop signal task, in which the go stimulus is followed occasionally by a signal to cancel the prepared response, N2 amplitude is larger on no-go trials than on go trials and on successful compared to failed stop trials (Enriquez-Geppert, Konrad, Pantev, & Huster, 2010;Kok, Ramautar, De Ruiter, Band, & Ridderinkhof, 2004;Ramautar, Kok, & Ridderinkhof, 2006;Schmajuk, Liotti, Busse, & Woldorff, 2006). …”

Section: The N2 Event-related Potentialmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In tasks requiring attention to a target stimulus, the P3 is maximal over posterior scalp electrodes and is thought to reflect updating of working memory (Polich, 2004). In response inhibition tasks it is larger in amplitude on no-go trials as well as successful stop trials (Enriquez-Geppert et al, 2010;Fallgatter & Strik, 1999;Smith, Johnstone, & Barry, 2007) and has a more frontal topography (termed 'no-go anteriorisation, NGA) (Fallgatter, Brandeis, & Strik, 1997;Fallgatter & Strik, 1999), potentially reflecting activity in pre-SMA and inferior frontal cortex (Huster et al, 2011) or cingulate regions (Fallgatter, Bartsch, & Herrmann, 2002;Strik, Fallgatter, Brandeis, & Pascual-Marqui, 1998). This has led to the suggestion that in the context of action regulation, the P3 is a marker of response inhibition with some authors proposing it as a more reliable marker of response inhibition than the N2 8 (Kropotov, Ponomarev, Hollup, & Mueller, 2011;Meel, 2005;Randall & Smith, 2011;Smith et al, 2007).…”

Section: The P3 Event-related Potentialmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Differential modulation of the N2 and P3 event-related potentials by response conflict and inhibition

Groom

Cragg

2015

Brain and Cognition

149

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Developing reliable and specific neural markers of cognitive processes is essential to improve understanding of healthy and atypical brain function. Despite extensive research there remains uncertainty as to whether two electrophysiological markers of cognitive control, the N2 and P3, are better conceptualised as markers of response inhibition or response conflict. The present study aimed to directly compare the effects of response inhibition and response conflict on the N2 and P3 event-related potentials, withinsubjects. Method:A novel hybrid go/no-go flanker task was performed by 19 healthy adults aged 18 to 25 years while EEG data were collected. The response congruence of a central target stimulus and 4 flanking stimuli was manipulated between trials to vary the degree of response conflict. Response inhibition was required on a proportion of trials. N2 amplitude was measured at two frontal electrode sites; P3 amplitude was measured at 4 midline electrode sites.Results: N2 amplitude was greater on incongruent than congruent trials but was not enhanced by response inhibition when the stimulus array was congruent. P3 amplitude was greater on trials requiring response inhibition; this effect was more pronounced at frontal electrodes. P3 amplitude was also enhanced on incongruent compared with congruent trials. Discussion:The findings support a role for N2 amplitude as a marker of response conflict and for the frontal shift of the P3 as a marker of response inhibition. This paradigm could be applied to clinical groups to help clarify the precise nature of impaired action control in disorders such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders (ADHD).3

show abstract

Section: N2 Amplitudementioning

confidence: 69%

Section: The N2 Event-related Potentialmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: The N2 Event-related Potentialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The P3 Event-related Potentialmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Differential modulation of the N2 and P3 event-related potentials by response conflict and inhibition

Groom

Cragg

2015

Brain and Cognition

149

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several authors have assumed that inhibition in this time window is a top-down executive control process (Ridderinkhof et al 1999;Enriquez-Geppert et al 2010). As previously described, the Go/No-go and Stop-signal paradigms are frequently used to study inhibition.…”

Section: Automatic and Controlled Nature Of Inhibition Between 200 Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

Event-Related Brain Potentials in the Study of Inhibition: Cognitive Control, Source Localization and Age-Related Modulations

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the previous fifteen years, a variety of experimental paradigms and methods have been employed to study inhibition. In the current review, we analyze studies that have used the high temporal resolution of the event-related potential (ERP) technique to identify the temporal course of inhibition to understand the various processes that contribute to inhibition. ERP studies with a focus on normal aging are specifically analyzed because they contribute to a deeper understanding of inhibition. Three time windows are proposed to organize the ERP data collected using inhibition paradigms: the 200 ms period following stimulus onset; the period between 200 and 400 ms after stimulus onset; and the period between 400 and 800 ms after stimulus onset. In the first 200 ms, ERP inhibition research has primarily focused on N1 and P1 as the ERP components associated with inhibition. The inhibitory processing in the second time window has been associated with the N2 and P3 ERP components. Finally, in the third time window, inhibition has primarily been associated with the N400 and N450 ERP components. Source localization studies are analyzed to examine 2 the association between the inhibition processes that are indexed by the ERP components and their functional brain areas. Inhibition can be organized in a complex functional structure that is not constrained to a specific time point but, rather, extends its activity through different time windows. This review characterizes inhibition as a set of processes rather than a unitary process.

show abstract

Neural Bases of Addiction‐Related Impairments in Response Inhibition

Garavan¹,

Potter²,

Brennan³

et al. 2015

The Wiley Handbook on the Cognitive Neuroscience of Addiction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflict and inhibition differentially affect the N200/P300 complex in a combined go/nogo and stop-signal task

Cited by 319 publications

References 49 publications

Differential modulation of the N2 and P3 event-related potentials by response conflict and inhibition

Differential modulation of the N2 and P3 event-related potentials by response conflict and inhibition

Event-Related Brain Potentials in the Study of Inhibition: Cognitive Control, Source Localization and Age-Related Modulations

Neural Bases of Addiction‐Related Impairments in Response Inhibition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About