Advertisement

European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 112, Issue 1, pp 207–214 | Cite as

The relationship between reaction time and response variability and somatosensory No-go potentials

  • Hiroki NakataEmail author
  • Kiwako Sakamoto
  • Ryusuke Kakigi
Original Article

Abstract

We investigated the relationship between reaction time (RT) and response variability and somatosensory Go/No-go potentials. Event-related potentials following electrical stimulation of the second (Go stimulus) or fifth (No-go stimulus) digit of the left hand were recorded from 16 subjects, and Go and No-go stimuli were presented at an even probability. The subjects were instructed to respond to the Go stimuli by pushing a button with their right thumb. We analyzed the correlation between RT and the N140 and P300 components, and between the standard deviation (SD) of RT and the N140 and P300. Neither the amplitude nor latency of the No-go-N140 (N140 evoked by No-go stimuli) or the Go-N140 (N140 evoked by Go stimuli) related significantly with RT and the SD of RT. There was a significant negative correlation between RT and the amplitude of the No-go-P300 (P300 evoked by No-go stimuli) at Fz and C3, indicating that subjects with a shorter RT had a No-go-P300 of larger amplitude. The latency of the Go-P300 (P300 evoked by Go stimuli) at Pz and C3 showed a significant correlation with RT. The SD of RT was significantly correlated with the amplitudes of the No-go-P300 at C3 and Go-P300 at Pz and C4, and the latency of the No-go-P300 at Cz and Go-P300 at Fz, Cz, Pz, C3, and C4. Our results suggest that response speed and variability for the Go stimulus in Go/No-go paradigms affect No-go-related neural activity for the No-go stimulus.

Keywords

No-go Nogo N140 P300 Response inhibition 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by grants from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists to H.N.

References

  1. Band GP, Ridderinkhof KR, van der Molen MW (2003) Speed-accuracy modulation in case of conflict: the roles of activation and inhibition. Psychol Res 67:266–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellgrove MA, Hester R, Garavan H (2004) The functional neuroanatomical correlates of response variability: evidence from a response inhibition task. Neuropsychologia 42:1910–1916PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bledowski C, Prvulovic D, Hoechstetter K, Scherg M, Wibral M, Goebel R, Linden DE (2004) Localizing P300 generators in visual target and distractor processing: a combined event-related potential and functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurosci 24:9353–9360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bokura H, Yamaguchi S, Kobayashi S (2001) Electrophysiological correlates for response inhibition in a Go/NoGo task. Clin Neurophysiol 112:2224–2232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braver TS, Barch DM, Gray JR, Molfese DL, Snyder A (2001) Anterior cingulate cortex and response conflict: effects of frequency, inhibition and errors. Cereb Cortex 11:825–836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruin KJ, Wijers AA (2002) Inhibition, response mode, and stimulus probability: a comparative event-related potential study. Clin Neurophysiol 113:1172–1182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Donchin E, Coles MG (1988) Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behav Brain Sci 11:357–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donkers FC, van Boxtel GJ (2004) The N2 in go/no-go tasks reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition. Brain Cogn 56:165–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doucet C, Stelmack MR (1999) The effect of response execution on P3 latency, reaction time, and movement time. Psychophysiology 36:351–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Falkenstein M, Koshlykova NA, Kiroi VN, Hoormann J, Hohnsbein J (1995) Late ERP components in visual and auditory Go/Nogo tasks. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 96:36–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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. Falkenstein M, Hoormann J, Hohnsbein J (2002) Inhibition-related ERP components: variation with modality, age, and time-on-task. J Psychophysiol 16:167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fallgatter AJ, Strik WK (1999) The NoGo-anteriorization as a neurophysiological standard-index for cognitive response control. Int J Psychophysiol 32:233–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ford JM, Pfefferbaum A, Tinklenberg JR, Kopell BS (1982) Effects of perceptual and cognitive difficulty on P3 and RT in young and old adults. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 54:311–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garavan H, Ross TJ, Stein EA (1999) Right hemispheric dominance of inhibitory control: an event-related functional MRI study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:8301–8306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gemba H, Sasaki K (1989) Potential related to no-go reaction in go/no-nogo hand movement task with color discrimination in human. Neurosci Lett 101:263–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gemba H, Sasaki K (1990) Potential related to no-go reaction in go/no-nogo hand movement with discrimination between tone stimuli of different frequencies in the monkey. Brain Res 537:340–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jasper HH (1958) The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 10:371–375Google 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 82:477–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson R Jr, Barnhardt J, Zhu J (2005) Differential effects of practice on the executive processes used for truthful and deceptive responses: an event-related brain potential study. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 24:386–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kamijo K, Nishihira Y, Hatta A, Kaneda T, Wasaka T, Kida T, Kuroiwa K (2004) Differential influences of exercise intensity on information processing in the central nervous system. Eur J Appl Physiol 92:305–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kekoni J, Hämäläinen H, McCloud V, Reinikainen K, Näätänen R (1996) Is the somatosensory N250 related to deviance discrimination or conscious target detection? Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 100:115–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kida T, Nishihira Y, Hatta A, Wasaka T (2003) Somatosensory N250 and P300 during discrimination tasks. Int J Psychophysiol 48:275–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kida T, Nishihira Y, Wasaka T, Nakata H, Sakamoto M (2004) Differential modulation of temporal and frontal components of the somatosensory N140 and the effect of interstimulus interval in a selective attention task. Brain Res Cog Brain Res 19:33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kiefer M, Marzinzik F, Wetsbrod 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 9:765–770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kok A (1986) Effects of degradation of visual stimulation on components of the event-related potential (ERP) in go/nogo reaction tasks. Biol Psychol 23:21–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Konishi S, Nakajima K, Uchida I, Kikyo H, Kameyama M, Miyashita Y (1999) Common inhibitory mechanism in human inferior prefrontal cortex revealed by event-related functional MRI. Brain 122:981–991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kopp B, Mattler U, Goertz R, Rist F (1996) N2, P3 and the lateralized readiness potential in a nogo task involving selective response priming. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 99:19–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kutas M, McCarthy G, Donchin E (1977) Augmenting mental chronometry: the P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. Science 197:792–795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCarthy G, Donchin E (1981) A metric for thought: a comparison of P300 latency and reaction time. Science 211:77–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nakamoto H, Mori S (2008) Effects of stimulus-response compatibility in mediating expert performance in baseball players. Brain Res 1189:179–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nakata H, Inui K, Nishihira Y, Hatta A, Sakamoto M, Kida T, Wasaka T, Kakigi R (2004) Effects of a go/nogo task on event-related potentials following somatosensory stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol 115:361–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nakata H, Inui K, Wasaka T, Tamura Y, Kida T, Kakigi R (2005a) Effects of ISI and stimulus probability on event-related go/nogo potentials after somatosensory stimulation. Exp Brain Res 162:293–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nakata H, Inui K, Wasaka T, Akatsuka K, Kakigi R (2005b) Somato-motor inhibitory processing in humans: a study with MEG and ERP. Eur J Neurosci 22:1784–1792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nakata H, Inui K, Wasaka T, Tamura Y, Akatsuka K, Kida T, Kakigi R (2006a) Higher anticipated force required a stronger inhibitory process in go/nogo tasks. Clin Neurophysiol 117:1669–1676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nakata H, Inui K, Wasaka T, Tamura Y, Kida T, Kakigi R (2006b) The characteristics of the nogo-N140 component in somatosensory go/nogo tasks. Neurosci Lett 397:318–322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nakata H, Sakamoto K, Ferretti A, Gianni Perrucci M, Del Gratta C, Kakigi R, Luca Romani G (2008) Somato-motor inhibitory processing in humans: an event-related functional MRI study. NeuroImage 39:1858–1866PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nakata H, Sakamoto K, Inui K, Hoshiyama M, Kakigi R (2009) The characteristics of no-go potentials with intraepidermal stimulation. NeuroReport 20:1149–1154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nakata H, Sakamoto K, Kakigi R (2010a) Effects of inter-stimulus interval on somatosensory Go/No-go ERPs. NeuroReport 21:1040–1044PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nakata H, Sakamoto K, Kakigi R (2010b) Characteristics of No-go P300 component during somatosensory Go/No-go paradigms. Neurosci Lett 478:124–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nieuwenhuis S, Yeung N, van den Wildenberg W, Ridderinkhof KR (2003) Electrophysiological correlates of anterior cingulate function in a go/no-go task: effects of response conflict and trial type frequency. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 3:17–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pfefferbaum A, Ford J, Johnson R Jr, Wenegrat B, Kopell BS (1983) Manipulation of P3 latency: speed vs. accuracy instructions. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 55:188–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pfefferbaum A, Ford JM, Weller BJ, Kopell BS (1985) ERPs to response production and inhibition. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 60:423–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ritter W, Simson R, Vaughan HG Jr, Friedman D (1979) A brain event related to the making of a sensory discrimination. Science 203:1358–1361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roche RA, Garavan H, Foxe JJ, O’mara SM (2005) Individual differences discriminate event-related potentials but not performance during response inhibition. Exp Brain Res 160:60–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roth WT, Ford JM, Kopell BS (1978) Long-latency evoked potentials and reaction time. Psychophysiology 15:17–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Segalowitz SJ, Dywan J, Unsal A (1997) Attentional factors in response time variability after traumatic brain injury: an ERP study. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 3:95–107PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Simmonds DJ, Fotedar SG, Suskauer SJ, Pekar JJ, Denckla MB, Mostofsky SH (2007) Functional brain correlates of response time variability in children. Neuropsychologia 45:2147–2157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith JL, Johnstone SJ, Barry RJ (2006) Effects of pre-stimulus processing on subsequent events in a warned Go/NoGo paradigm: response preparation, execution and inhibition. Int J Psychophysiol 61:121–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith JL, Johnstone SJ, Barry RJ (2007) Response priming in the Go/NoGo task: the N2 reflects neither inhibition nor conflict. Clin Neurophysiol 118:343–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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 108:406–413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tian Y, Yao D (2008) A study on the neural mechanism of inhibition of return by the event-related potential in the Go/NoGo task. Biol Psychol 79:171–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vallesi A, Stuss DT, McIntosh AR, Picton TW (2009) Age-related differences in processing irrelevant information: evidence from event-related potentials. Neuropsychologia 47:577–586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Gaal S, Ridderinkhof KR, Fahrenfort JJ, Scholte HS, Lamme VA (2008) Frontal cortex mediates unconsciously triggered inhibitory control. J Neurosci 28:8053–8062PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroki Nakata
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Kiwako Sakamoto
    • 1
    • 3
  • Ryusuke Kakigi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Integrative PhysiologyNational Institute for Physiological SciencesOkazakiJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of Sport SciencesWaseda UniversityTokorozawaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, Graduate School of MedicineThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations