Contingent negative variation, extraversion, reaction time and drug effects

Werre, P.F.; Mattie, H.; Berretty, Ed

doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00091-x

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The lack of significance in other amplitude measures is mostly in line with studies reviewed earlier: as with the present between-subjects data, no significant within-subjects relationships between N1/P2 and RT were found by Hillyard (1969), Waszak and Obrist (1969) and Näätänen and Gaillard (1974). However, while some researchers found that larger early CNV amplitude was linked to faster reaction times (Connor and Lang, 1969;Gaillard, 1976;Haagh and Brunia, 1985), and others found no relationship (Rohrbaugh et al, 1976;Brunia and Vingerhoets, 1980;Wascher et al, 1996;Werre et al, 2001), our regression coefficients indicated that a smaller early CNV was related to fast responding, although the unique contribution of this measure was not significant. In sum, the results of this study are generally compatible with previous research, where RT shows a weak but consistent relationship with late CNV, and although group differences are apparent in the amplitude of other components, these do not contribute significantly to mean RT.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Effects of pre-stimulus processing on subsequent events in a warned Go/NoGo paradigm: Response preparation, execution and inhibition

Smith¹,

Johnstone²,

Barry³

2006

International Journal of Psychophysiology

135

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cued Go/NoGo task elicits response preparation during the foreperiod, and, depending on the S2 signal, either response execution or inhibition. This study aimed to determine how processes in the foreperiod might affect or predict post-S2 processing. Thirty-two adults participated in a cued Go/NoGo task (50% Go), with a median split of mean RT producing "Fast" and "Slow" groups. ERP measures were subjected to both ANOVA and regression techniques. There were no differences in the NoGo N2 effect related to response speed, nor was the effect related to pre-S2 processes. The anterior shift of the NoGo P3 was larger in the Fast group, and while the late CNV was associated with the absolute amplitude of both Go and NoGo P3, it was not related to the anterior-posterior Go/NoGo differences. Together, these data suggest that the inhibitory process may be reflected in the NoGo P3 effect, rather than the NoGo N2 effect.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Effects of pre-stimulus processing on subsequent events in a warned Go/NoGo paradigm: Response preparation, execution and inhibition

Smith¹,

Johnstone²,

Barry³

2006

International Journal of Psychophysiology

135

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Apart from lower values of some of the proactive control indices, high procrastinators also showed slower reactions throughout the task, which might result from inattention to cues and decreased preparatory activation before probe presentation. Indeed, previous studies have shown that greater cue utilization and larger CNV amplitudes are associated with faster reactions (Brouwers et al, 2017 ; Hillyard, 1969 ; Werre et al, 2001 ). We also replicated our previous results regarding increased RTV among high procrastinators, which indicates difficulties in sustained attention in this group of participants (Michałowski et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Decreased preparatory activation and inattention to cues suggest lower activation of proactive cognitive control among high procrastinating students

Wiwatowska

Czajeczny

Michałowski

2021

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Procrastination is a voluntary delay in completing an important task while being aware that this behavior may lead to negative outcomes. It has been shown that an increased tendency to procrastinate is associated with deficits in some aspects of cognitive control. However, none of the previous studies investigated these dysfunctions through the lenses of the Dual Mechanisms Framework, which differentiates proactive and reactive modes of control. The present study was designed to fill this gap, using behavioral and neurophysiological assessment during the completion of the AX-Continuous Performance Task (AX-CPT) by high (HP) and low (LP) procrastinating students (N = 139). Behavioral results indicated that HP (vs. LP) were characterized by increased attentional fluctuations (higher reaction time variability) and reduction in some indices of proactive cognitive control (lower d’-context and A-cue bias, but similar PBIs). Furthermore, the neurophysiological data showed that HP, compared with LP, allocated less attentional resources (lower P3b) to cues that help to predict the correct responses to upcoming probes. They also responded with reduced preparatory activity (smaller CNV) after cues presentation. The two groups did not differ in neural responses linked to conflict detection and inhibition (similar N2 and P3a). Obtained findings indicate that HP might present deficits in some cognitive functions that are essential for effective proactive control engagement, along with preserved levels of reactive cognitive control. In the present paper, we discuss the potential neural and cognitive mechanisms responsible for the observed effects.

show abstract

“…All participants were screened using the Life Events Scale (LES) (Tennant & Andrews, 1976;Zhang et al, 1987) to exclude students who had experienced any other major stressor during the past month. Since there are evidences that the different personality characteristics have different CNV patterns (Brown et al, 1989;Werre, Mattie, & Berretty, 2001), we also measured their personality scores, as described in the questionnaires section, to ensure the homogeny of the two groups in personality characteristics. All of the students reported normal hearing and normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and all of them right-handed based on self-report.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%