Sequence effects support the conflict theory of N2 and P3 in the Go/NoGo task.

In two-choice tasks the preceding sequence of stimuli robustly influences both the P3 ERP component and reaction time (RT) to the current stimulus. We examined sequence effects in both two-choice and Go/NoGo tasks to distinguish between inhibition and conflict accounts of the N2 and P3 components. RT results suggested similar subjective expectancies were generated in the Go/NoGo and two-choice task. N2 was increased for all unexpected stimuli, even when no response inhibition was required, consistent with a conflict interpretation. The Go/NoGo P3 results also suggested a conflict explanation, and that this conflict was reduced if the response had been recently performed. These results support a reconsideration of the roles of N2 and P3 in all inhibition and conflict tasks, and the Go/NoGo task in particular.

[1]  T. Braver,et al.  Anterior cingulate cortex and response conflict: effects of frequency, inhibition and errors. , 2001, Cerebral cortex.

[2]  H. Semlitsch,et al.  A solution for reliable and valid reduction of ocular artifacts, applied to the P300 ERP. , 1986, Psychophysiology.

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

[4]  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.

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

[6]  Robert J. Barry,et al.  The auditory-evoked N2 and P3 components in the stop-signal task: Indices of inhibition, response-conflict or error-detection? , 2006, Brain and Cognition.

[7]  M K Kaiser,et al.  MANOVA method for analyzing repeated measures designs: an extensive primer. , 1985, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  J. Pekar,et al.  fMRI evidence that the neural basis of response inhibition is task-dependent. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[9]  Dorret I. Boomsma,et al.  Accounting for sequential trial effects in the flanker task: Conflict adaptation or associative priming? , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[10]  B. J. Casey,et al.  The Effect of Preceding Context on Inhibition: An Event-Related fMRI Study , 2002, NeuroImage.

[11]  H. Bokura,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates for response inhibition in a Go/NoGo task , 2001, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[12]  I. Jentzsch,et al.  Functional localization and mechanisms of sequential effects in serial reaction time tasks , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  S. Mäntysalo,et al.  N2 and P3 of the ERP to Go and Nogo stimuli: a stimulus-response association and dissociation. , 1987, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology. Supplement.

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

[15]  Yihong Yang,et al.  A neural basis for the development of inhibitory control , 2002 .

[16]  M. Jarvik,et al.  Probability learning and a negative recency effect in the serial anticipation of alternative symbols. , 1951, Journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  Carolin Dudschig,et al.  Locus of response slowing resulting from alternation-based processing interference. , 2008, Psychophysiology.

[18]  Jacqueline A. Rushby,et al.  An orienting reflex perspective on anteriorisation of the P3 of the event-related potential , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[19]  E. Soetens.  Localizing sequential effects in serial choice reaction time with the information reduction procedure , 1998 .

[20]  J Horváth,et al.  Simultaneously active pre-attentive representations of local and global rules for sound sequences in the human brain. , 2001, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[21]  R. J. Doherty,et al.  Separation of the components of the late positive complex in an ERP dishabituation paradigm , 2005, Clinical Neurophysiology.

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

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

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

[25]  I. Jentzsch,et al.  Response conflict determines sequential effects in serial response time tasks with short response-stimulus intervals. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  Hisae Gemba,et al.  Potential related to no-go reaction of go/no-go hand movement task with color discrimination in human , 1989, Neuroscience Letters.

[28]  A Pfefferbaum,et al.  ERPs to stimuli requiring response production and inhibition: effects of age, probability and visual noise. , 1988, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[29]  W. Sommer,et al.  Consciousness of attention and expectancy as reflected in event-related potentials and reaction times. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[30]  P. Bertelson.  Sequential Redundancy and Speed in a Serial Two-Choice Responding Task , 1961 .

[31]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: applications to dementia and amnesia. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[32]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  A model of the go/no-go task. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[33]  K. J. Bruin,et al.  Response priming in a go/nogo task: do we have to explain the go/nogo N2 effect in terms of response activation instead of inhibition? , 2001, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[34]  A. Kok.  Effects of degradation of visual stimuli on components of the event-related potential (ERP) in go/nogo reaction tasks , 1986, Biological Psychology.

[35]  H Pratt,et al.  Ear advantage and attention: an ERP study of auditory cued attention , 2004, Hearing Research.

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

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

[38]  Antonino Vallesi,et al.  FMRI evidence of a functional network setting the criteria for withholding a response , 2009, NeuroImage.

[39]  J. Kenemans,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of attention, inhibition, sensitivity and bias in a continuous performance task , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[40]  E. Donchin,et al.  Probability effects on stimulus evaluation and response processes. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[41]  W. Sommer,et al.  Differential effects of voluntary expectancies on reaction times and event-related potentials: evidence for automatic and controlled expectancies. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[42]  J. Polich,et al.  P300 amplitude is determined by target-to-target interval. , 2002, Psychophysiology.

[43]  C. Carter,et al.  The Timing of Action-Monitoring Processes in the Anterior Cingulate Cortex , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[45]  Evian Gordon,et al.  Numbers of preceding nontargets differentially affect responses to targets in normal volunteers and patients with schizophrenia: A study of event-related potentials , 1995, Psychiatry Research.

[46]  Yuping Wang,et al.  Event-Related Potentials in a No-Go Task Involving Response-Tendency Conflict , 2002, Clinical EEG.

[47]  E. Soetens,et al.  Covert signs of expectancy in serial reaction time tasks revealed by event-related potentials , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[48]  Frederick Verbruggen,et al.  Short-term aftereffects of response inhibition: repetition priming or between-trial control adjustments? , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[49]  Erwin Hennighausen,et al.  N200 in the Eriksen-Task: Inhibitory Executive Processes? , 2000 .

[50]  Margot J. Taylor,et al.  Guidelines for using human event-related potentials to study cognition: recording standards and publication criteria. , 2000, Psychophysiology.

[51]  Robert J. Remington,et al.  Analysis of Sequential Effects for a Four-Choice Reaction Time Experiment. , 1971 .

[52]  E. Golob,et al.  Effects of stimulus sequence on event-related potentials and reaction time during target detection in Alzheimer's disease , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[53]  Kevin Murphy,et al.  Individual differences in the functional neuroanatomy of inhibitory control , 2006, Brain Research.

[54]  Donald Laming,et al.  Information theory of choice-reaction times , 1968 .

[55]  N. Squires,et al.  The effect of stimulus sequence on the waveform of the cortical event-related potential. , 1976, Science.

[56]  P Sandroni,et al.  Readiness to respond in a target detection task: pre- and post-stimulus event-related potentials in normal subjects. , 1995, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

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

[58]  A. Nativ,et al.  Potentials associated with the initiation and inhibition of visually triggered finger movement in humans: the "no-go potential" in the go/no-go paradigm. , 1992, International Journal of Neuroscience.

[59]  I. Jentzsch,et al.  Sequence-sensitive subcomponents of P300: topographical analyses and dipole source localization. , 2001, Psychophysiology.

[60]  N. Kirby.  Sequential effects in two-choice reaction time: automatic facilitation or subjective expectancy? , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[62]  E. Donchin,et al.  Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[63]  I. Winkler.  Interpreting the Mismatch Negativity , 2007 .

[64]  E Donchin,et al.  P300 and stimulus categorization: two plus one is not so different from one plus one. , 1980, Psychophysiology.

[65]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The effects of stimulus sequence on event related potentials: A comparison of visual and auditory sequences , 1977 .

[66]  Hiroshi Fukuda,et al.  The human prefrontal and parietal association cortices are involved in NO-GO performances—an event-related fMRI study , 2000, NeuroImage.

[67]  Jonathan R. Folstein,et al.  Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: a review. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[68]  B. Kopp,et al.  N2, P3 and the lateralized readiness potential in a nogo task involving selective response priming. , 1996, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[69]  R. Barry,et al.  Effects of pre-stimulus processing on subsequent events in a warned Go/NoGo paradigm: response preparation, execution and inhibition. , 2006, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[70]  R. Näätänen,et al.  Sequential effects on the ERP in discriminating two stimuli , 1983, Biological Psychology.

[71]  R. Remington.  Analysis of sequential effects in choice reaction times. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[72]  G. Band,et al.  Speed-accuracy modulation in case of conflict: the roles of activation and inhibition , 2003, Psychological research.