Developmental differences in behavioral and event‐related brain responses associated with response preparation and inhibition in a go/nogo task

Abstract

The present study investigated developmental trends in response inhibition and preparation by studying behavior and event-related brain activity in a cued go/nogo task, administered to nine-year-old children and young adults. Hits, false alarms, inattention, and impulsivity scores and ERP measures of inhibition (fronto-central nogo-N2 and P3), target selection (parietal go-nogo P3 difference), and response preparation (contingent negative variation; CNV) were collected. Higher false alarm and impulsivity scores and the absence of the fronto-central nogo P3 all suggest a developmental lag in response inhibition in children. A developmental lag in sustained attention processes was suggested by worse target detection and larger parietal target/nontarget P3 effects in children. Cue orientation and response preparation processes were respectively measured by early and late CNV activity. Children displayed smaller early CNV amplitudes at fronto-central locations, but mature late CNV. The smaller early CNV activity might indicate inefficient cue-orientation processes caused by incomplete frontal lobe development.

Event-related potentials in clinical research: Guidelines for eliciting, recording, and quantifying mismatch negativity, P300, and N400

“…It should be noted, however, that their findings of a larger P3a in children than in adults is not consistent with other reports in the literature (e.g., Oades et al, 1997). Jonkman et al (2003) examined age effects in ERPs elicted in a visual warned go/no-go task, the Continuous Performance Test (CPT-AX), in which letters are presented one at a time. The participants were instructed to press a button when the letter X appeared, but only when it was preceded by the letter A (AX sequence).…”

Neural Correlates of Response Inhibition in Early Childhood: Evidence From a Go/No-Go Task

“…P1 was defined as a positive deflection between 60 and 150 ms, and P3 was defined as the positive deflection between 310 and 610 ms. The time windows were determined after considering previous studies with similar age groups (Ciesielski et al, 2004; Davis et al, 2003; Jonkman et al, 2003; Lahat et al, 2010) and visual examination of the grand averaged and individual waveforms. Peak latency and mean amplitude measures were averaged across electrodes within clusters selected to be compatible with the 10–20 electrode placement system.…”

“…Most of these studies have found ERPs modulated by response inhibition demands were more evident at posterior electrode sites (Brydges, Anderson, Reid, & Fox, 2013; Ciesielski et al, 2004; Durston et al, 2002; Jonkman et al, 2007). Jonkman, Lansbergen, and Stauder (2003) directly compared 9-year-old children and adults, and found that the No-go P3 was maximal at posterior electrode sites in children, but frontally maximal in adults. Furthermore, several studies have found laterality differences in brain activity during response inhibition between children and adults.…”

How to withhold or replace a prepotent response: An analysis of the underlying control processes and their temporal dynamics

“…'X') appears. In the cued variant of the go/nogo task (Band, Ridderinkhof, van der Molen, 2003;Bekker, Kenemans & Verbaten, 2004;Bruin, Wijers, & van Staveren, 2001;Jonkman, Lansbergen & Stauder, 2003;Randall & Smith, 2011;Smith, Jonstone & Barry, 2006), a cue provides information about which response is probably required and subjects are asked to prepare this response (a key press with a left finger, a right finger, or no response). Whether or not the cued response is subsequently required is clarified by a second stimulus that follows after a variable delay.…”