Is N2 associated with successful suppression of behavior responses in impulse control processes?

Abstract

Traditional studies tend to show that the N2 potential is an index for impulse control. Some researchers doubt that the N2 potential is related to behavior suppression because the impulse control usually occurs in the behavioral inhibition condition. This study investigates whether the N2 potential is associated with the successful suppression of behavior responses in impulse control processes. We recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) while participants performed a go/no-go task (task 1) and a variation of the go/no-go task with reduced behavioral involvement during the impulse control process (task 2). In task 1, we found that, in N2, higher mean amplitude and shorter peak latency were found in the no-go condition than in the go condition. No significant difference was found for either mean amplitude or peak latency between the no-go and go conditions in task 2. Task 1 and task 2 were consistent in task procedure, ERP waveforms, ERP components, and topographical maps in the no-go condition. Results show that, in the no-go condition, the N2 potential was associated with the successful suppression of the behavior response in the impulse control process. Our results indicate that N2 is a combination of behavioral suppression and cognitive control rather than a simple ERP component that marks the cognitive impulse control process.

Inhibitory control in otherwise healthy overweight 10-year-old children

“…The absence of time pressure to respond in cognitive tasks might have influenced the performance of subjects. 57 Additional response modality (oral, for instance) or trial types for the Stroop test could help explore further interference and/or facilitation effects. 31 Finally, IDA in infancy appears to affect inhibitory control at the age of 10 years.…”

Neural activity associated with executive functions in adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

“…An excellent paradigm is the Go/No-go task where the No-go stimulus elicits ERPs such as the N2 that reflects these classification and inhibitory processes (Folstein et al, 2008;Dong et al, 2009). No-go stimuli often precipitate premature behavioural responses (errors) that allow the normal ERP markers of monitoring success in processing and response to be studied (Falkenstein et al, 2001).…”

Electrophysiological evidence that inhibition supports lexical selection in picture naming

“…Although there are various forms of the N2 that can be elicited in different tasks (see Folstein and Van Petten, 2008, for review), of particular interest in the current study is the N2 elicited in tasks requiring response inhibition, which has a frontal-central to right-frontal scalp distribution, and has been associated with activity in the medial prefrontal and right inferior frontal cortices (e.g., Forstmann et al, 2008;Van den Wildenberg et al, 2011;Verhoef et al, 2009). For instance, in the go/no-go task, a larger N2 is typically found on no-go relative to go trials, suggesting that the N2 reflects the successful inhibition of the response (e.g., Bruin et al, 2001;Carriero et al, 2007;Dong et al, 2009;Eimer, 1993;Falkenstein et al, 1999;Kok, 1986). Although the N2 component is observed in go/no-go tasks in which nonselective response inhibition is likely to be involved, it is also found in the Eriksen flanker task (e.g., Heil et al, 2000) and the Stroop task (e.g., Silton et al, 2010), where selective response inhibition may be involved.…”