Contingent Negative Variation and Individual Differences A New Approach in Brain Research

Contingent negative variation (CNV) associated with sensorimotor timing error correction

“…The contingent negative variation (CNV) is sensitive to the anticipation of (and attention to) an incoming stimulus in order to prepare a subsequent behavioral response (Tecce, 1971(Tecce, , 1972. As in many previous CNV studies (Cui et al, 2000), it appeared at fronto-central sites (maximally detected at FCz as in the current study).…”

The study of early emotion processing in the frontal area using a two‐dipole source model

“…Studies of contingent negative variation (CNV) using electrical shock have indicated that the amplitude of CNV increased in subjects with low trait anxiety but did not change in those with high trait anxiety (Knott & Irwin, 1967, 1968, 1973. These findings were interpreted as meaning that subjects with high trait anxiety withdrew from electrical shock (Tecce, 1971). The difference between groups in this study might also suggest that high trait anxiety diminished the attention given to the stimuli.…”

Sustained attention and prediction: distinct brain maturation trajectories during adolescence

“…The present electrophysiological results, showing immature CNV and P3 topographies in early and late adolescents, are consistent with a later maturation of sustained attention. More precisely, our results suggest that attentional preparation indexed by the CNV (Tecce, 1971 ; Segalowitz and Davies, 2004 ; Padilla et al, 2013 ) and allocation of attentional resources reflected by the P3 (Segalowitz and Davies, 2004 ; Stige et al, 2007 ) are both immature and involved in the continued development of sustained attention after age 12. ERP results show an increase of the frontal contribution to CNV topography with older age, consistent with Tecce ( 1971 ), and an increase of the frontal and a decrease of the parietal contributions to P3 with older age, in agreement with previous studies (Courchesne et al, 1978 ; Mueller et al, 2008 ).…”

“…More precisely, our results suggest that attentional preparation indexed by the CNV (Tecce, 1971 ; Segalowitz and Davies, 2004 ; Padilla et al, 2013 ) and allocation of attentional resources reflected by the P3 (Segalowitz and Davies, 2004 ; Stige et al, 2007 ) are both immature and involved in the continued development of sustained attention after age 12. ERP results show an increase of the frontal contribution to CNV topography with older age, consistent with Tecce ( 1971 ), and an increase of the frontal and a decrease of the parietal contributions to P3 with older age, in agreement with previous studies (Courchesne et al, 1978 ; Mueller et al, 2008 ). This frontal shift through adolescence is consistent with the proposal of a move in strategy from a posterior stimulus-driven orienting network to engagement of an anterior top-down attention network (Rubia et al, 2010 ; Smith et al, 2011 ; Padilla et al, 2013 ) and a shift from a reactive to a proactive cognitive control (Andrews-Hanna et al, 2011 ; Munakata et al, 2012 ; Chevalier et al, 2014 ; Lucenet and Blaye, 2014 ).…”