Inhibitory control in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: event-related potentials identify the processing component and timing of an impaired right-frontal response-inhibition mechanism

Pliszka, Steven R.; Liotti, Mario; Woldorff, Marty G.

doi:10.1016/s0006-3223(00)00890-8

Cited by 348 publications

(321 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

265

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sample-by-sample t tests performed on the difference wave revealed that the N2 component was significantly larger for stop trials than for go-on trials beween 281 and 336 msec. Usually, if present, the N2 has a slightly more anterior topographic distribution and deviates stronger from the 0 μV baseline than observed here (e.g., Schmajuk et al, 2006;Pliszka, Liotti, & Woldorff, 2000). Visual inspection of the difference maps of Figure 3A suggests that the early posterior negativity (70-316 msec) and the N2 (281-336 msec) are slightly overlapping in time, which might have incurred a slightly more posterior scalp maximum and smaller magnitude for the N2.…”

Section: Electrophysiological Effects Related To Conscious Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 50%

“…EEG recording revealed that successful inhibition on unmasked stop trials was associated with three ERP components previously associated with response inhibition in the stop signal paradigm (Boehler et al, 2008;Dimoska & Johnstone, 2008;Schmajuk et al, 2006;Bekker et al, 2005;Ramautar et al, 2004;van Boxtel et al, 2001;Pliszka et al, 2000;de Jong, Coles, Logan, & Gratton, 1990). Although all EEG components observed on masked stop trials resembled the corresponding components observed on successfully inhibited unmasked stop trials, several differences were observed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dissociable Brain Mechanisms Underlying the Conscious and Unconscious Control of Behavior

Gaal¹,

Lamme²,

Fahrenfort³

et al. 2011

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). 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. Thus, the N2 likely reflects the initiation of inhibitory control, irrespective of conscious awareness. The P3 component was much reduced in amplitude and duration on masked versus unmasked stop trials. These patterns of differences and similarities between conscious and unconscious cognitive control processes are discussed in a framework that differentiates between feedforward and feedback connections in yielding conscious experience.

show abstract

Section: Electrophysiological Effects Related To Conscious Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 50%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Dissociable Brain Mechanisms Underlying the Conscious and Unconscious Control of Behavior

Gaal¹,

Lamme²,

Fahrenfort³

et al. 2011

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Impaired cognitive control has been reported in a range of neurodevelopmental disorders, particularly attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Groom et al, 2008;Groom et al, 2010;Pliszka, Liotti, & Woldorff, 2000;Yong-Liang et al, 2000) and schizophrenia (Groom et al, 2008;Kiehl, Smith, Hare, & Liddle, 2000;Roche et al, 2004). However the precise features of cognitive control that are impaired have not been well characterised, partly because of a lack of consistency in how these processes are measured and described.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Groom

Cragg

2015

Brain and Cognition

136

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

“…In a Stop-signal task measuring response inhibition, the control N2 for Stop stimuli was reduced in children with ADHD, reflecting impaired response conflict monitoring (Pliszka, Liotti, & Woldorff, 2000). Using an oddball ERP CORRELATES OF CONFLICT PROCESSING IN ADHD 7 task, later cognitive ERP responses (P3) to task-relevant vs. task-irrelevant stimuli were reduced in children with ADHD in comparison to TD children (Holcomb, Ackerman, & Dykman, 1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Children With ADHD Show Impairments in Multiple Stages of Information Processing in a Stroop Task: An ERP Study

Kóbor

Takács

Bryce

et al. 2015

Developmental Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inhibitory control in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: event-related potentials identify the processing component and timing of an impaired right-frontal response-inhibition mechanism

Cited by 348 publications

References 24 publications

Dissociable Brain Mechanisms Underlying the Conscious and Unconscious Control of Behavior

Dissociable Brain Mechanisms Underlying the Conscious and Unconscious Control of Behavior

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

Children With ADHD Show Impairments in Multiple Stages of Information Processing in a Stroop Task: An ERP Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About