Top

Gepubliceerd in:

06-08-2021 | Original Article

The fronto-central N2 but not parietal P3 reflects response inhibition in the count/no-count task

Auteurs: Jingyan Jing, Zhuyun Zhang, Mingming Qi, Heming Gao

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2022

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate whether the N2 or P3 component in the count/no-count task reflects response inhibition. The participants were asked to count/withhold counting the number of O/X letters in the count/no-count task, and to calculate the sum of all digits (i.e., 1/0) in the digital accumulation task. Therefore, four conditions were obtained in this study: count, no-count, Add 1, and Add 0. In the count and Add 1 conditions, the counting/calculation number need to be updated. In both no-count and Add 0 conditions, the memory of counting/calculation number need not to be updated; a No-go (withhold) instruction was given in the no-count condition, but a Go instruction was given in the Add 0 condition. Results showed that an enhanced fronto-central N2 was evoked in the no-count than in the Add 0 condition, indicating that a stronger response conflict or stronger inhibition might be triggered in the No-count condition. The frontocentral P3 showed no differences between no-count and Add 0 conditions, however, an enhanced centro-parietal P3 component was observed for the count relative to the no-count condition and for the Add 1 relative to the Add 0 condition, indicating that a greater amount of attentional resources might be consumed during memory updating process. Taken together, in the count/no-count task, the fronto-central N2 might reflect response inhibition or conflict and the parietal P3 might reflect attentional resource allocation but not response inhibition.

vorige artikel Age-related post-error slowing and stimulus repetition effect in motor inhibition during a stop-signal task

volgende artikel Inhibition and individual differences in behavior and emotional regulation in adolescence

Aron, A. R., Dowson, J. H., Sahakian, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2003). Methylphenidate improves response inhibition in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 54(12), 1465–1468. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-3223(03)00609-7CrossRefPubMed

Baroody, A. J., Purpura, D. J., Eiland, M. D., & Reid, E. E. (2015). The impact of highly and minimally guided discovery instruction on promoting the learning of reasoning strategies for basic add-1 and doubles combinations. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 30, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.09.003CrossRef

Barry, R. J., De Blasio, F. M., Fogarty, J. S., & Karamacoska, D. (2016). ERP Go/NoGo condition effects are better detected with separate PCAs. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 106, 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.06.003CrossRefPubMed

Bokura, H., Yamaguchi, S., & Kobayashi, S. (2001). Electrophysiological correlates for response inhibition in a Go/NoGo task. Clinical Neurophysiology, 112(12), 2224–2232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1388-2457(01)00691-5CrossRefPubMed

Bruin, K. J., & Wijers, A. A. (2002). Inhibition, response mode, and stimulus probability: a comparative event-related potential study. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113(7), 1172–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1388-2457(02)00141-4CrossRefPubMed

Camos, V., & Barrouillet, P. (2004). Adult counting is resource demanding. British Journal of Psychology, 95(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712604322779433CrossRefPubMed

Cavanagh, J. F., & Frank, M. J. (2014). Frontal theta as a mechanism for cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(8), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.012CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chambers, C. D., Garavan, H., & Bellgrove, M. A. (2009). Insights into the neural basis of response inhibition from cognitive and clinical neuroscience. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 33(5), 631–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.08.016CrossRefPubMed

Chochon, F., Cohen, L., Moortele, P. V. D., & Dehaene, S. (1999). Differential contributions of the left and right inferior parietal lobules to number processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(6), 617–630. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892999563689CrossRefPubMed

Courchesne, E., Hillyard, S. A., & Courchesne, R. Y. (1977). P3 waves to the discrimination of targets in homogeneous and heterogeneous stimulus sequences. Psychophysiology, 14(6), 590–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1977.tb01206.xCrossRefPubMed

Criaud, M., Longcamp, M., Anton, J. L., Nazarian, B., Roth, M., Sescousse, G., & Boulinguez, P. (2017). Testing the physiological plausibility of conflicting psychological models of response inhibition: a forward inference fMRI study. Behavioural Brain Research, 333, 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2017.06.030CrossRefPubMed

Daffner, K. R., Chong, H., Sun, X., Tarbi, E. C., Riis, J. L., Mcginnis, S. M., et al. (2011). Mechanisms underlying age- and performance-related differences in working memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(6), 1298–1314. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21540CrossRefPubMed

Damian, M. F. (2004). Asymmetries in the processing of Arabic digits and number words. Memory & Cognition, 32(1), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195829CrossRef

Di Russo, F., Lucci, G., Sulpizio, V., Berchicci, M., Spinelli, D., Pitzalis, S., & Galati, G. (2016). Spatiotemporal brain mapping during preparation, perception, and action. NeuroImage, 126, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.036CrossRefPubMed

Donchin, E., & Coles, M. G. (1988). Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11(3), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00058027CrossRef

Donkers, F. C., & Van Boxtel, G. J. (2004). The N2 in go/no-go tasks reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition. Brain and Cognition, 56(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2004.04.005CrossRefPubMed

Duncan-Johnson, C. C., & Donchin, E. (1977). On quantifying surprise: the variation of event-related potentials with subjective probability. Psychophysiology, 14(5), 456–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1977.tb01312.xCrossRefPubMed

Enriquez-Geppert, S., Konrad, C., Pantev, C., & Huster, R. J. (2010). Conflict and inhibition differentially affect the N200/P300 complex in a combined go/nogo and stop-signal task. NeuroImage, 51(2), 877–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.043CrossRefPubMed

Falkenstein, M., Hoormann, J., & Hohnsbein, J. (1999). ERP components in Go/Nogo tasks and their relation to inhibition. Acta Psychologica, 101(2–3), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00008-6CrossRefPubMed

Folstein, J. R., & Van Petten, C. (2008). Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: a review. Psychophysiology, 45(1), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00602.xCrossRefPubMed

Gao, H., Qi, M., & Zhang, Q. (2017). Response inhibition is more effortful than response activation: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. NeuroReport, 28(7), 404–407. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000764CrossRefPubMed

Gratton, G., & Coles, M. G. H. (1989). Generalization and evaluation of eye-movement correction procedures. Journal of Psychophysiology, 3, 1–50.

Groom, M. J., & Cragg, L. (2015). Differential modulation of the N2 and P3 event-related potentials by response conflict and inhibition. Brain and Cognition, 97, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2015.04.004CrossRefPubMed

Itthipuripat, S., Wessel, J. R., & Aron, A. R. (2013). Frontal theta is a signature of successful working memory manipulation. Experimental Brain Research, 224(2), 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3305-3CrossRefPubMed

Janssen, T. W., Heslenfeld, D. J., van Mourik, R., Geladé, K., Maras, A., & Oosterlaan, J. (2018). Alterations in the ventral attention network during the stop-signal task in children with ADHD: an event-related potential source imaging study. Journal of Attention Disorders, 22(7), 639–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054715580847CrossRefPubMed

Jiang, T., Qiao, S., Li, J., Cao, Z., Gao, X., Song, Y., & Chen, C. (2010). Effects of symbol type and numerical distance on the human event-related potential. Neuropsychologia, 48(1), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.005CrossRefPubMed

Johnstone, S. J., Dimoska, A., Smith, J. L., Barry, R. J., Pleffer, C. B., Chiswick, D., & Clarke, A. R. (2007). The development of stop-signal and Go/Nogo response inhibition in children aged 7–12 years: performance and event-related potential indices. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 63(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.07.001CrossRefPubMed

Kahneman, D., Peavler, W. S., & Onuska, L. (1968). Effects of verbalization and incentive on the pupil response to mental activity. Canadian Journal of Psychology/revue Canadienne De Psychologie, 22(3), 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082759CrossRef

Karamacoska, D., Barry, R. J., & Steiner, G. Z. (2017). Resting state intrinsic EEG impacts on go stimulus-response processes. Psychophysiology, 54(6), 894–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12851CrossRefPubMed

Klimesch, W. (2012). Alpha-band oscillations, attention, and controlled access to stored information. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(12), 606–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.10.007CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kok, A. (1986). Effects of degradation of visual stimuli on components of the event-related potential (ERP) in go/nogo reaction tasks. Biological Psychology, 23(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0511(86)90087-6CrossRefPubMed

Lenartowicz, A., Escobedo-Quiroz, R., & Cohen, J. D. (2010). Updating of context in working memory: an event-related potential study. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10(2), 298–315. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.10.2.298CrossRef

Nakata, H., Inui, K., Nishihira, Y., Hatta, A., Sakamoto, M., Kida, T., & Kakigi, R. (2004). Effects of a go/nogo task on event-related potentials following somatosensory stimulation. Clinical Neurophysiology, 115(2), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2003.09.013CrossRefPubMed

Nakata, H., Sakamoto, K., Ferretti, A., Perrucci, M. G., Del Gratta, C., Kakigi, R., & Romani, G. L. (2008). Somato-motor inhibitory processing in humans: an event-related functional MRI study. NeuroImage, 39(4), 1858–1866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.10.041CrossRefPubMed

Nguyen, A. T., Moyle, J. J., & Fox, A. M. (2016). N2 and P3 modulation during partial inhibition in a modified go/nogo task. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 107, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.07.002CrossRefPubMed

Nieuwenhuis, S., Yeung, N., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Stimulus modality, perceptual overlap, and the go/no-go N2. Psychophysiology, 41(1), 157–160. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8986.2003.00128.xCrossRefPubMed

Pandey, A. K., Kamarajan, C., Tang, Y., Chorlian, D. B., Roopesh, B. N., Manz, N., & Porjesz, B. (2012). Neurocognitive deficits in male alcoholics: an ERP/sLORETA analysis of the N2 component in an equal probability Go/NoGo task. Biological Psychology, 89(1), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.10.009CrossRefPubMed

Pfefferbaum, A., Ford, J. M., Weller, B. J., & Kopell, B. S. (1985). ERPs to response production and inhibition. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 60(5), 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(85)91017-XCrossRefPubMed

Polich, J. (2004). Clinical application of the P300 event-related brain potential. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics, 15(1), 133–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-9651(03)00109-8CrossRefPubMed

Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(10), 2128–2148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sahan, M. I., Majerus, S., Andres, M., & Fias, W. (2019). Functionally distinct contributions of parietal cortex to a numerical landmark task: an fMRI study. Cortex, 114, 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.11.005CrossRefPubMed

Salisbury, D. F., Griggs, C. B., Shenton, M. E., & McCarley, R. W. (2004). The NoGo P300 ‘anteriorization’ effect and response inhibition. Clinical Neurophysiology, 115(7), 1550–1558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2004.01.028CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Salisbury, D. F., Rutherford, B., Shenton, M. E., & McCarley, R. W. (2001). Button-pressing affects P300 amplitude and scalp topography. Clinical Neurophysiology, 112(9), 1676–1684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1388-2457(01)00607-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sawaki, R., & Katayama, J. I. (2007). Difficulty of discrimination modulates attentional capture for deviant information. Psychophysiology, 44(3), 374–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00506.xCrossRefPubMed

Smith, J. L., Jamadar, S., Provost, A. L., & Michie, P. T. (2013). Motor and non-motor inhibition in the Go/NoGo task: an ERP and fMRI study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 87(3), 244–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.07.185CrossRefPubMed

Smith, J. L., Johnstone, S. J., & Barry, R. J. (2008). Movement-related potentials in the Go/NoGo task: the P3 reflects both cognitive and motor inhibition. Clinical Neurophysiology, 119(3), 704–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2007.11.042CrossRefPubMed

Smith, J. L., Smith, E. A., Provost, A. L., & Heathcote, A. (2010). Sequence effects support the conflict theory of N2 and P3 in the Go/NoGo task. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 75(3), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.11.002CrossRefPubMed

Sonuga-Barke, E., Bitsakou, P., & Thompson, M. (2010). Beyond the dual pathway model: evidence for the dissociation of timing, inhibitory, and delay-related impairments in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(4), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2009.12.018CrossRef

Stanners, R. F., Coulter, M., Sweet, A. W., & Murphy, P. (1979). The pupillary response as an indicator of arousal and cognition. Motivation and Emotion, 3(4), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00994048CrossRef

Tuholski, S. W., Engle, R. W., & Baylis, G. C. (2001). Individual differences in working memory capacity and enumeration. Memory & Cognition, 29(3), 484–492. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196399CrossRef

Verleger, R., Grauhan, N., & Śmigasiewicz, K. (2016). Go and no-go P3 with rare and frequent stimuli in oddball tasks: a study comparing key-pressing with counting. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 110, 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.11.009CrossRefPubMed

Wessel, J. R., & Aron, A. R. (2015). It’s not too late: the onset of the frontocentral P 3 indexes successful response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm. Psychophysiology, 52(4), 472–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12374CrossRefPubMed

Williams, C. C., Kappen, M., Hassall, C. D., Wright, B., & Krigolson, O. E. (2019). Thinking theta and alpha: mechanisms of intuitive and analytical reasoning. NeuroImage, 189, 574–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.01.048CrossRefPubMed

Zinchenko, A., Chen, S., & Zhou, R. (2019). Affective modulation of executive control in early childhood: evidence from ERPs and a Go/Nogo task. Biological Psychology, 144, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.03.016CrossRefPubMed

Zinchenko, A., Kanske, P., Obermeier, C., Schröger, E., & Kotz, S. A. (2015). Emotion and goal-directed behavior: ERP evidence on cognitive and emotional conflict. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(11), 1577–1587. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv050CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Zinchenko, A., Kanske, P., Obermeier, C., Schröger, E., Villringer, A., & Kotz, S. A. (2018). Modulation of cognitive and emotional control in age-related mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Frontiers in Neurology, 9, 783. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00783CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: The fronto-central N2 but not parietal P3 reflects response inhibition in the count/no-count task
Auteurs: Jingyan Jing
Zhuyun Zhang
Mingming Qi
Heming Gao
Publicatiedatum: 06-08-2021
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2022
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01571-w

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2022

They’re watching you: the impact of social evaluation and anxiety on threat-related perceptual decision-making

Original Article

An implicit task reveals space-time associations along vertical and diagonal axes

Original Article

GOALIATH: a theory of goal-directed behavior

Open Access
Original Article

Does perceptual grouping improve visuospatial working memory? Optimized processing or encoding bias

Open Access
Original Article

More or less of me and you: self-relevance augments the effects of item probability on stimulus prioritization

Open Access
Original Article

A multi-representation approach to the contextual interference effect: effects of sequence length and practice

Open Access
Original Article

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Registreer

Login

The fronto-central N2 but not parietal P3 reflects response inhibition in the count/no-count task

Abstract

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2022

They’re watching you: the impact of social evaluation and anxiety on threat-related perceptual decision-making

An implicit task reveals space-time associations along vertical and diagonal axes

GOALIATH: a theory of goal-directed behavior

Does perceptual grouping improve visuospatial working memory? Optimized processing or encoding bias

More or less of me and you: self-relevance augments the effects of item probability on stimulus prioritization

A multi-representation approach to the contextual interference effect: effects of sequence length and practice

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Registreer

Login

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

They’re watching you: the impact of social evaluation and anxiety on threat-related perceptual decision-making

An implicit task reveals space-time associations along vertical and diagonal axes

GOALIATH: a theory of goal-directed behavior

Does perceptual grouping improve visuospatial working memory? Optimized processing or encoding bias

More or less of me and you: self-relevance augments the effects of item probability on stimulus prioritization

A multi-representation approach to the contextual interference effect: effects of sequence length and practice