Relation of a negative ERP component to response inhibition in a Go/No-go task
References (15)
- et al.
CNV and EMG preceding a plantar flexion of the foot
Biol. Psychol.
(1980) - et al.
Potential related to no-go reaction of go/no-go hand movement task with color discrimination in human
Neurosci. Lett.
(1989) - et al.
Potential related to no-go hand movement with discrimination between tone stimuli of different frequencies in the monkey
Brain Res.
(1990) - et al.
Anticipatory response-relevant activity, CNV amplitude and simple reaction time
Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol.
(1985) - et al.
Effects of practice on the P300 in a Go/NoGo task
Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol.
(1990) - et al.
ERPs to stimuli requiring response production and inhibition: effects of age, probability and visual noise
Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol.
(1988) - et al.
ERPs to response production and inhibition
Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol.
(1985)
Cited by (430)
Uncovering the underlying factors of ERP changes in the cyberball paradigm: A systematic review investigating the impact of ostracism and paradigm characteristics
2023, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral ReviewsEffects of the number of competing responses on neural signatures of pre- and post-response conflict
2023, Biological PsychologyNegative inhibition is poor in sub-threshold depression individuals: Evidence from ERP and a Go/No-go task
2023, Psychiatry Research - NeuroimagingCognitive flexibility in preschoolers: A role for the late frontal negativity (LFN)
2022, Cognitive DevelopmentNeural mechanisms of inhibitory control deficits in obesity revealed by P3 but not N2 event-related potential component
2022, AppetiteCitation Excerpt :Regarding ERP data, we observed inhibition-related effects on P3, but not N2 component, suggesting that inhibitory control toward foods should be associated with P3 rather than N2. Although earlier studies usually regarded both N2 and P3 components as the neural correlates of response inhibition (Eimer, 1993; Jodo & Kayama, 1992; Falkenstein, Hoormann, & Hohnsbein, 1999), recent studies have recognized that N2 might reflect other non-inhibitory processes (i.e., conflict processing, mismatch detection) rather than inhibitory control (Albert et al., 2013; Donkers & Van Boxtel, 2004; Enriquez-Geppert, Konrad, Pantev, & Huster, 2010; Falkenstein, 2006; Hong et al., 2017; Nieuwenhuis et al., 2003). Thus, we might speculate that the N2 effect reported in previous studies which typically consisted of NoGo and Go trials with different probabilities (i.e., 30% vs. 70%) should not reflect inhibitory processing per se (Carbine et al., 2017; Carbine, Duraccio, et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2018; Watson & Garvey, 2013).