Sequence effects in the Go/NoGo task: Inhibition and facilitation

Abstract

Facilitation and inhibition are asymmetric aspects of attention that differentially affect response times (RTs), accuracy and neuroelectric activity in many experimental tasks. Both vary as a function of stimulus context, with stimulus repetitions, for example, often resulting in facilitation in terms of speed, accuracy or reduced neural activity. Although inhibition has been extensively studied in the Go/NoGo task, facilitation has been overlooked. Twenty healthy adults performed an adapted Go/NoGo task which manipulated levels of facilitation and inhibition. Event related potential (ERP) and behavioural measures were averaged according to preceding stimulus sequences. Established Go/NoGo effects for N2 and P3 components were replicated. Behavioural and ERP measures, however, showed strong sequence effects. Correlates of facilitation included reduced P1 and N1 latencies, and topographic effects in P1, to Go stimulus repetitions. Manipulations of inhibitory load through increasingGo before NoGo stimuli resulted in incremental increases in N1, P2 and N2 latencies. Several additional ERP and RT measures showed quadratic effects, with indications of facilitation or inhibition which reversed towards the end of longer stimulus trains. The results suggest that both facilitatory and inhibitory processes underlie performance in the Go/NoGo task. As Go stimuli are typically more frequently repeated than NoGo stimuli, the two processes may be confounded when sequence effects are not considered. Additionally, analysing stimuli by context indicates that the timing of the Go-P3 latency is closely related to responses, and the prolongation of N1, P2 and N2 with increasing difficulty of inhibition supports a possible relation of these components to inhibition. trains. The results suggest that both facilitatory and inhibitory processes underlie performance in the Go/NoGo task. As Go stimuli are typically more frequently repeated than NoGo stimuli, the two processes may be confounded when sequence effects are not considered.Additionally, analysing stimuli by context indicates that the timing of the Go-P3 latency is closely related to responses, and the prolongation of N1, P2 and N2 with increasing difficulty of inhibition supports a possible relation of these components to inhibition.

Event-Related Brain Potentials in the Study of Inhibition: Cognitive Control, Source Localization and Age-Related Modulations

“…E. Kirmizi-Alsan et al Go trials, which supports a potential relationship between these components and inhibition ; S. J. Thomas et al 2009). Tian and Yao (2008) used ERPs with a peripheral cued Go/No-go task to study the neural mechanism of Inhibition of Return (IOR), which represents an inhibitory effect produced by a peripheral cue or target that hinders the accuracy and speed of response to targets that appear on the peripherally cued locations.…”

“…N1 and P1 effects have primarily been identified in behavioral inhibition paradigms, such as the Stop-signal (Bekker et al 2005), Go/No-go (S. J. Thomas et al 2009;Tian and Yao 2008;E. Kirmizi-12 Alsan et al 2006;Lavric et al 2004;Bokura et al 2002;Filipovic et al 2000), Eriksen Flanker (Abad-Rodriguez et al 2004Hsieh and Fang 2012;Johnstone et al 2009;Wild-Wall et al 2008) and Spatial cueing (Fu et al 2005;McDonald et al 1999;Wascher and Tipper 2004) tasks.…”

“…Several of these studies have examined the relevance of inhibitory processes in normal aging (Mayas et al 2012;Turner and Spreng 2012;Haring et al 2013;Wostmann et al 2013), as well as a variety of clinical conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD; Collette et al 2009; C. Thomas et al 2010;Cheng et al 2012), mild cognitive impairment (MCI; Belleville et al 2007), traumatic brain injury (TBI; Dimoska-Di Marco et al 2011), depression (Dai and Feng 2011;Bobb et al 2012), anxiety (Robinson et al 2013), schizophrenia (Hughes et al 2012), fibromyalgia (Mercado et al 2013), attention deficithyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Senderecka et al 2012), alcoholism (Padilla et al 2011) and psychopathy (Verona et al 2012). Thomas et al 2009); Stop-signal (Bekker et al 2005;van Boxtel et al 2001);Eriksen Flanker (Wild-Wall et al 2008;Neuhaus et al 2007); Stroop (Hanslmayr et al 2008); and NP (Gibbons et al 2006;Kathmann et al 2006). …”

Electrophysiology of facilitation priming in obsessive–compulsive and panic disorders

“…We previously described an experimental task designed to separately examine both inhibitory and facilitatory aspects of selective attention (Susan Jennifer Thomas, Gonsalvez, & Johnstone, 2009). This is a modified Go/NoGo task in which facilitation and inhibitory load were manipulated by varying the number of Go stimuli preceding Go and NoGo stimuli.…”

“…In the current study we used the previously established experimental approach (Susan Jennifer Thomas, et al, 2009) to examine brain activity correlated with repetition priming in OCD. To examine the specificity of effects to OCD, we included an anxious comparison group with panic disorder, as well as healthy controls (HCs).…”