N2 and P3 modulation during partial inhibition in a modified go/nogo task.

The neural response following the partial inhibition of responses can provide insight into the processes underlying response inhibition. We examined the N2 and P3 on trials where participants correctly responded to go stimuli, successfully inhibited their response to nogo stimuli, and nogo trials where they initiated but did not complete their response (partial inhibitions) in an adult sample (N=24, M(age)=21.17, SD(age)=3.52). An enhanced and delayed N2 was observed on partially inhibited compared to successfully inhibited nogo trials. Further analysis showed that this modulation was error-related. An enhanced central P3 was observed following successful inhibitions compared to correct go trials, but not following partial inhibitions. The results suggest that the central P3 enhancement is specific to the complete and successful inhibition of responses. Therefore, the absence of a central P3 on partial inhibitions could reflect insufficient inhibition or a monitored failure in inhibiting the response. Although, our findings provide support for the role of P3 in response inhibition, it raises questions about the processes involved in the subsequent inhibition or correction of the erroneous response. Further research examining the neural response following both partial and unsuccessful inhibitions could provide insight regarding these processes.

[1]  G. Logan,et al.  In search of the point of no return: the control of response processes. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  M. Posner,et al.  Localization of a Neural System for Error Detection and Compensation , 1994 .

[3]  Clay B. Holroyd,et al.  Errors in reward prediction are re£ected in the event-related brain potential , 2003 .

[4]  B. Burle,et al.  Electroencephalographic nogo potentials in a no-movement context: the case of motor imagery in humans , 2004, Neuroscience Letters.

[5]  D. Hoaglin,et al.  Fine-Tuning Some Resistant Rules for Outlier Labeling , 1987 .

[6]  Arnaud Delorme,et al.  EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis , 2004, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[7]  S. Holm A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure , 1979 .

[8]  Geert J. M. van Boxtel,et al.  The N2 in go/no-go tasks reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition , 2004, Brain and Cognition.

[9]  Janette L. Smith,et al.  Conflict and inhibition in the cued-Go/NoGo task , 2011, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[10]  J. Polich Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[11]  Koji Inui,et al.  Higher anticipated force required a stronger inhibitory process in go/nogo tasks , 2006, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[12]  K. Nation,et al.  Go or no-go? Developmental improvements in the efficiency of response inhibition in mid-childhood. , 2008, Developmental science.

[13]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[14]  Diane Swick,et al.  Are the neural correlates of stopping and not going identical? Quantitative meta-analysis of two response inhibition tasks , 2011, NeuroImage.

[15]  Koji Inui,et al.  Effects of a go/nogo task on event-related potentials following somatosensory stimulation , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[16]  J. Hohnsbein,et al.  ERP components in Go/Nogo tasks and their relation to inhibition. , 1999, Acta psychologica.

[17]  Steven J. Luck,et al.  ERPLAB: an open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[18]  S. Wiebe,et al.  The Temporal Dynamic of Response Inhibition in Early Childhood: An ERP Study of Partial and Successful Inhibition , 2014, Developmental neuropsychology.

[19]  Dorothy V. M. Bishop,et al.  Journal of Neuroscience Methods , 2015 .

[20]  H. Amièva,et al.  Inhibitory Breakdown and Dementia of the Alzheimer Type: A General Phenomenon? , 2002, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[21]  C. Carter,et al.  The anterior cingulate as a conflict monitor: fMRI and ERP studies , 2002, Physiology & Behavior.

[22]  M. Botvinick,et al.  Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. , 2001, Psychological review.

[23]  R. Barry,et al.  Movement-related potentials in the Go/NoGo task: The P3 reflects both cognitive and motor inhibition , 2008, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[24]  J. Leitão,et al.  Event-Related Brain Potentials in the Study of Inhibition: Cognitive Control, Source Localization and Age-Related Modulations , 2014, Neuropsychology Review.

[25]  P. Michie,et al.  ERP correlates of response inhibition to elemental and configural stimuli in a negative patterning task , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[26]  E. Bullmore,et al.  Mapping Motor Inhibition: Conjunctive Brain Activations across Different Versions of Go/No-Go and Stop Tasks , 2001, NeuroImage.

[27]  D. Pizzagalli,et al.  When ‘go’ and ‘nogo’ are equally frequent: ERP components and cortical tomography , 2004, The European journal of neuroscience.

[28]  P. Michie,et al.  Motor and non-motor inhibition in the Go/NoGo task: an ERP and fMRI study. , 2013, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[29]  Joseph Dien,et al.  The ERP PCA Toolkit: An open source program for advanced statistical analysis of event-related potential data , 2010, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[30]  A. A. Wijers,et al.  Inhibition, response mode, and stimulus probability: a comparative event-related potential study , 2002, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[31]  J. Chikazoe Localizing performance of go/no-go tasks to prefrontal cortical subregions , 2010, Current opinion in psychiatry.

[32]  Janette L. Smith To go or not to go, that is the question: do the N2 and P3 reflect stimulus- or response-related conflict? , 2011, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[33]  E. Jodo,et al.  Relation of a negative ERP component to response inhibition in a Go/No-go task. , 1992, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[34]  K. R. Ridderinkhof,et al.  Effects of stop-signal modality on the N2/P3 complex elicited in the stop-signal paradigm , 2006, Biological Psychology.

[35]  Y. Miyashita,et al.  Preparation to Inhibit a Response Complements Response Inhibition during Performance of a Stop-Signal Task , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[36]  E. Stein,et al.  Right hemispheric dominance of inhibitory control: an event-related functional MRI study. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[37]  Shane M. O’Mara,et al.  Individual differences discriminate event-related potentials but not performance during response inhibition , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[38]  S. Smith,et al.  Tests of forecast accuracy and bias for county population projections. , 1987, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[39]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[40]  Ivo Käthner,et al.  An auditory multiclass brain-computer interface with natural stimuli: Usability evaluation with healthy participants and a motor impaired end user , 2015, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[41]  Robert J. Barry,et al.  Response priming in the Go/NoGo task: The N2 reflects neither inhibition nor conflict , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[42]  K Richard Ridderinkhof,et al.  ERP components associated with successful and unsuccessful stopping in a stop-signal task. , 2004, Psychophysiology.

[43]  F. Crews,et al.  Binge ethanol consumption causes differential brain damage in young adolescent rats compared with adult rats. , 2000, Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research.

[44]  S. Luck An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique , 2005 .

[45]  K. R. Ridderinkhof,et al.  Effects of stop-signal probability in the stop-signal paradigm: The N2/P3 complex further validated , 2004, Brain and Cognition.

[46]  L. Leocani,et al.  Response competition and response inhibition during different choice-discrimination tasks: evidence from ERP measured inside MRI scanner. , 2013, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[47]  Kathryn M. McMillan,et al.  A comparison of label‐based review and ALE meta‐analysis in the Stroop task , 2005, Human brain mapping.

[48]  M. W. Molen,et al.  A psychophysiological analysis of inhibitory motor control in the stop-signal paradigm , 2001, Biological Psychology.

[49]  K. R. Ridderinkhof,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of anterior cingulate function in a go/no-go task: Effects of response conflict and trial type frequency , 2003, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[50]  H. Garavan,et al.  Dissociable Executive Functions in the Dynamic Control of Behavior: Inhibition, Error Detection, and Correction , 2002, NeuroImage.

[51]  K. Nation,et al.  Neural correlates of successful and partial inhibitions in children: an ERP study. , 2009, Developmental psychobiology.

[52]  J. Kenemans,et al.  The pure electrophysiology of stopping. , 2005, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[53]  Koji Jimura,et al.  Activation of Right Inferior Frontal Gyrus during Response Inhibition across Response Modalities , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[54]  P. Apkarian,et al.  Motoric response inhibition in finger movement and saccadic eye movement: a comparative study , 1999, Clinical Neurophysiology.