Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 160, Issue 1, pp 60–70 | Cite as

Individual differences discriminate event-related potentials but not performance during response inhibition

  • Richard A. P. Roche
  • Hugh Garavan
  • John J. Foxe
  • Shane M. O’Mara
Research Article

Abstract

Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded from 20 normal participants while they completed a Go/NoGo response inhibition task. Previous ERP studies have implicated the N2 and P3 waveforms as the main indices of processing in this task, and functional brain imaging has shown parietal, prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices to be involved in response inhibition. 32-channel ERP analysis revealed amplitude differences in the N2/P3 components when stimuli that required a button-press (Go stimuli) were compared with stimuli for which the response had to be withheld (No-Go stimuli), and in N2 and P3 latencies when successful withholds to No-Go stimuli were compared with unsuccessful attempts to inhibit. Further differences in the N2/P3 complex emerged when participants were grouped in terms of a measure of absentmindedness (the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire, CFQ); larger and earlier components were found for high CFQ respondents. We conclude that the latencies of the N2 and P3 may be the critical indicators of active inhibitory processes for this task, suggesting that a pattern of sequential activation rather than altered activity level in key structures may mediate success on the task. In addition, highly absentminded participants exhibited larger components for errors than did less absentminded participants when performing at the same level, which implies that the absentminded may require greater activity in the neural substrates of response inhibition in order to accomplish this task at a comparable level of performance to less absentminded participants.

Keywords

Cognitive failures questionnaire Event-related potentials Go/NoGo N2/P3 complex 

References

  1. American Encephalographic Society (1994) Guidelines for standard electrode position nomenclature. J Clin Neurophysiol 11:40–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bokura H, Yamaguchi S, Kobayashi S (2002) Electrophysiological correlates for response inhibition in a Go/NoGo task. Clin Neurophysiol 112:2224–2232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandeis D, van Leeuwen TH, Rubia K, Vitacco D, Steger J, Pascual-Marqui RD, Steinhausen H-Ch (1998) Neuroelectric mapping reveals precursor of stop failures in children with attentional deficits. Behav Brain Res 94:111–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Broadbent DE, Cooper PF, FitzGerald P, Parkes KR (1982) The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. Brit J Clin Psychol 21:1–16Google Scholar
  5. Bruin KJ, Wijers AA, van Staveren ASJ (2001) 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? Clin Neurophysiol 112:1660–1671CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter CS, Braver TS, Barch DM, Botvinick MM, Noll D, Cohen JD (1998) Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance. Science 280:747–749CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dehaene S, Posner MI, Tucker DM (1994) Localisation of a neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychol Sci 5:303–305Google Scholar
  8. de Zubicaray GI, Andrew C, Zelaya FO, Williams SC, Dumanoir C (2000) Motor response suppression and the prepotent tendency to respond: a parametric fMRI study. Neuropsychologia 38:1280–1291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Duncan-Johnson CC, Donchin E (1977) On quantifying surprise: the variation of event-related potentials with subjective probability. Psychophysiol 14:456–467Google Scholar
  10. Falkenstein M, Koshlykova NA, Kiroj VN, Hoormann J, Hohnsbein J (1995) Late ERP components in visual and auditory Go/Nogo tasks. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 96:36–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Falkenstein M, Hoormann J, Hohnsbein J (1999) ERP components in Go/Nogo tasks and their relation to inhibition. Acta Psychol 101:267–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Filipović SR, Jahanshahi M, Rothwell JC (2000) Cortical potentials related to the nogo decision. Exp Brain Res 132:411–415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fox AM, Michie PT, Wynne CD, Maybery MT (2000) ERP correlates of response inhibition to elemental and configural stimuli in a negative patterning task. Clin Neurophysiol 111:1045–1053CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Garavan H, Ross TJ, Stein EA (1999) Right hemispheric dominance of inhibitory control: an event-related functional MRI study. Proc Nat Acad Sci 96:8301–8306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Garavan H, Ross TJ, Murphy K, Roche RAP, Stein EA (2002) Dissociable executive functions in the behavioural control: Inhibition, error detection and correction. NeuroImage 17:1820–1829CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gehring WJ, Goss B, Coles MGH, Meyer DE, Donchin E (1993) A neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychol Sci 4:385–390Google Scholar
  17. Hoffman JE (1990) Event-related potentials and automatic and controlled processes. In: Rohrbaugh JW, Parasuraman R, Johnson R (eds) Event-related brain potentials: basic issues and applications. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, pp 145–157Google Scholar
  18. Jackson SR, Jackson GM, Roberts M (1999) The selection and suppression of action: ERP correlates of executive control in humans. Neuroreport 10:861–865PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Jodo E, Kayama Y (1992) Relation of a negative ERP component to response inhibition in a Go/No-go task. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 82:477–482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kiefer M, Marzinzik F, Weisbrod M, Scherg M, Spitzer M (1998) The time course of brain activations during response inhibition: evidence from event-related potentials in a go/no go task. NeuroReport 9:765–770PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Larson GE, Alderton DL, Neideffer M, Underhill E (1997) Further evidence on dimensionality and correlates of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire. Brit J Psychol 88:29–38Google Scholar
  22. Molholm S, Ritter W, Murray MM, Javitt DC, Schroeder CE, Foxe JJ (2002) Multisensory auditory—visual interactions during early sensory processing in humans: a high-density electrical mapping study. Cog Brain Res 14:115–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pfefferbaum A, Ford JM, Weller BJ, Kopell BS (1985) ERPs to response production and inhibition. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 60:423–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Porter N, Robertson IH (2002) The highs and lows of sustained attention: an ERPs study. Int J Psychophysiol 45:129Google Scholar
  25. Ravden D, Polich J (1998) Habituation of P300 from visual stimuli. Int J Psychophysiol 30:359–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Rieger M, Gauggel S (2002) Inhibition of ongoing responses in patients with traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychologia 40:76–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Roche RAP, O’Mara SM (2003) Behavioural and electrophysiological correlates of visuomotor learning in a visual search task. Cog Brain Res 15:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simson R, Vaughan HG Jr, Ritter W (1977) The scalp topography of potentials in auditory and visual Go/NoGo tasks. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 43:864–875CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Strik WK, Fallgatter AJ, Brandeis D, Pascual-Marqui RD (1998) Three-dimensional tomography of event-related potentials during response inhibition: evidence for phasic frontal lobe activation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 108:406–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Van’t Ent (2002) Perceptual and motor contributions to performance and ERP components after incorrect motor activation in a flanker reaction task. Clin Neurophysiol 113:270–283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard A. P. Roche
    • 1
  • Hugh Garavan
    • 1
  • John J. Foxe
    • 2
  • Shane M. O’Mara
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology & Trinity College Institute of NeuroscienceUniversity of Dublin, Trinity CollegeDublinIreland
  2. 2.The Nathan Kline InstituteOrangeburgUSA

Personalised recommendations