Disentangling Sequential Effects of Stimulus- and Response-related Conflict and Stimulus-Response Repetition using Brain Potentials

Wendt, Mike; Heldmann, Marcus; Münte, Thomas F.; Kluwe, Rainer H.

doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.7.1104

Cited by 78 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies comparing neural signatures of stimulus and response conflict revealed inconsistent findings: fMRI recordings (van Veen, Cohen, Botvinick, Stenger, & Carter, 2001) and ERPs (van Veen & Carter, 2002) showed activations of the ACC exclusively during response conflict and not during stimulus conflict. In contrast, Wendt, Heldmann, Munte, and Kluwe (2007) reported an N2 effect in the ERP for both stimulus and response conflict that did not distinguish between conflict types.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…Our results contrast to reports by van Veen et al (van Veen & Carter, 2002;van Veen et al, 2001) who conducted a letter flanker experiment and reported enhanced activity within the MFC only during response conflict but not during perceptual conflict in an fMRI study (2001). In an ERP study (van Veen & Carter, 2002), they replicated this finding with N2 enhancements only during response conflict trials whereas Wendt et al (2007) found N2 enhancements both for stimulus and response conflicts. In the latter study, however, the N2 effects did not dissociate between response and stimulus conflict.…”

Section: Mfc Theta Power During Perceptual and Response Conflictmentioning

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Theta Dynamics Reveal Domain-specific Control over Stimulus and Response Conflict

Nigbur

Cohen

Ridderinkhof

et al. 2012

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

218

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theta dynamics reveal domain-specific control over stimulus and response conflict Nigbur, R.; Cohen, M.S.; Ridderinkhof, K.R.; Stürmer, B. Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. changes. The medial frontal cortex (MFC) is thought to detect conflicts and recruit additional resources from other brain areas including the lateral prefrontal cortices. Here we investigated how the MFC acts in concert with visual, motor, and lateral prefrontal cortices to support adaptations of goal-directed behavior. Physiologically, these interactions may occur through local and longrange synchronized oscillation dynamics, particularly in the theta range (4-8 Hz). A speeded flanker task allowed us to investigate conflict-type-specific control networks for perceptual and response conflicts. Theta power over MFC was sensitive to both perceptual and response conflict. Interareal theta phase synchrony, however, indicated a selective enhancement specific for response conflicts between MFC and left frontal cortex as well as between MFC and the presumed motor cortex contralateral to the response hand. These findings suggest that MFC theta-band activity is both generally involved in conflict processing and specifically involved in linking a neural network controlling response conflict. ■

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Mfc Theta Power During Perceptual and Response Conflictmentioning

confidence: 85%

Theta Dynamics Reveal Domain-specific Control over Stimulus and Response Conflict

Nigbur

Cohen

Ridderinkhof

et al. 2012

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

218

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here it was recently shown that the Ne differed between healthy controls and symptomatic HD (Beste et al 2006) as well as between symptomatic and presymptomatic HD (Beste et al 2007b) but not between healthy controls and presymptomatic HD (Beste et al 2007a). It is still a matter of debate whether the Ne, supposed to reflect error processing (e.g., Falkenstein et al 1991;Ullsperger and von Cramon 2001), is comparable to the N2, reflecting conflict processing (e.g., Azizian et al 2006;Wendt et al 2007). The pattern of results regarding a similar reduction of the Ne and the N2 in HD suggests that the Ne and the N2 share common processes (see also : Yeung et al 2004).…”

Section: Conflict Processingmentioning

confidence: 91%

Stimulus-Response Compatibility in Huntington's Disease: A Cognitive-Neurophysiological Analysis

Beste

Saft²,

Andrich³

et al. 2008

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beste C, Saft C, Andrich J, Gold R, Falkenstein M. Stimulusresponse compatibility in Huntington's disease: a cognitive-neurophysiological analysis. J Neurophysiol 99: 1213-1223, 2008. First published January 9, 2008 doi:10.1152/jn.01152.2007. The basal ganglia are assumed to be of importance in action/response selection, but results regarding the importance are contradictive. We investigate these processes in relation to attentional processing using eventrelated potentials (ERPs) in Huntington's disease (HD), an autosomal genetic disorder expressed by degeneration of the basal ganglia, using a flanker task. A symptomatic HD group, a presymptomatic HD group (pHD), and healthy controls were examined. In the behavioral data, we found a general response slowing in HD while the compatibility effect was the same for all groups. The ERP data show a decrease of the N1 on the flanker in HD and pHD; this suggests deficient attentional processes. The N1 on the target was unaffected, suggesting that the attentional system in HD is not entirely deficient. The early lateralized readiness potential (LRP), reflecting automatic response activation due to the flankers, was unchanged, whereas the late LRP, reflecting controlled response selection due to the target information, was delayed in HD. Thus levels of action-selection processes are differentially affected in HD with automatic processes seeming to be more robust against neurodegeneration. The N2, usually associated with conflict processing, was reduced in the HD but not in the pHD and the control groups. Because the N2 was related to the LRP and reaction times in all groups, the N2 may generally not be related to conflict but rather to controlled response selection, which is impaired in HD. Overall, the results suggest alterations in attentional control, conflict processing, and controlled response selection in HD but not in automatic response selection.

show abstract

“…Chen et al, 2011;Z. Chen, Lei, Ding, Li, & Chen, 2013;Steinhauser & Hübner, 2009;Wendt, Heldmann, Münte, & Kluwe, 2007). Researchers have utilized congruent trials as a baseline to measure response conflict and have successfully differentiated response-and semantic-based conflict using distribution analysis (A.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing stimulus–stimulus (semantic) conflict in the Stroop task using saccadic two-to-one color response mapping and preresponse pupillary measures

Hasshim

Parris

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflict in the Stroop task is thought to come from various stages of processing, including semantics. Two-to-one response mappings, in which two response-set colors share a common response location, have been used to isolate stimulus-stimulus (semantic) from stimulus-response conflict in the Stroop task. However, the use of congruent trials as a baseline means that the measured effects could be exaggerated by facilitation, and recent research using neutral, non-colorword trials as a baseline has supported this notion. In the present study, we sought to provide evidence for stimulusstimulus conflict using an oculomotor Stroop task and an early, preresponse pupillometric measure of effort. The results provided strong (Bayesian) evidence for no statistical difference between two-to-one response-mapping trials and neutral trials in both saccadic response latencies and preresponse pupillometric measures, supporting the notion that the difference between same-response and congruent trials indexes facilitation in congruent trials, and not stimulus-stimulus conflict, thus providing evidence against the presence of semantic conflict in the Stroop task. We also demonstrated the utility of preresponse pupillometry in measuring Stroop interference, supporting the idea that pupillary effects are not simply a residue of making a response.Keywords Stroop . Semantic conflict . Same response . Pupillometry . OculomotorThe Stroop effect refers to the finding that people are slower to name the color that a word is printed in when the word spells out another color (incongruent trials-e.g., the word red in blue) than to name the color of a square (Stroop, 1935) or to name a word's color when the word spells out the same color (congruent trials-e.g., the word red in red; Klein, 1964; see MacLeod, 1991, for a review). The Stroop task has been described as the gold standard for measuring attention (MacLeod, 1992) and has been the focus of influential models of attention (e.g., Cohen, Dunbar, & McClelland 1990;Glaser & Glaser, 1989;Roelofs, 2003).The Stroop effect has been attributed to having to resolve conflict at the response stage when the color and the meaning of the word each activate different responses (referred to as response conflict or stimulus-response conflict; Cohen et al., 1990;MacLeod, 1991;Roelofs, 2003). However, some researchers have posited that, in addition to interference/ conflict resolution at the response stage, performance in the Stroop task also requires conflict resolution at earlier processing stages (e.g

show abstract

Disentangling Sequential Effects of Stimulus- and Response-related Conflict and Stimulus-Response Repetition using Brain Potentials

Cited by 78 publications

References 36 publications

Theta Dynamics Reveal Domain-specific Control over Stimulus and Response Conflict

Theta Dynamics Reveal Domain-specific Control over Stimulus and Response Conflict

Stimulus-Response Compatibility in Huntington's Disease: A Cognitive-Neurophysiological Analysis

Assessing stimulus–stimulus (semantic) conflict in the Stroop task using saccadic two-to-one color response mapping and preresponse pupillary measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About