Evaluating low-resolution tomography neurofeedback by single dissociation of mental grotation task from stop signal task performance

2015 ◽  
Vol 292 ◽  
pp. 470-477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nir Getter ◽  
Zeev Kaplan ◽  
Doron Todder
2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 214-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niklas Johannes ◽  
Harm Veling ◽  
Thijs Verwijmeren ◽  
Moniek Buijzen

Abstract. Because more and more young people are constantly presented with the opportunity to access information and connect to others via their smartphones, they report to be in a state of permanent alertness. In the current study, we define such a state as smartphone vigilance, an awareness that one can always get connected to others in combination with a permanent readiness to respond to incoming smartphone notifications. We hypothesized that constantly resisting the urge to interact with their phones draws on response inhibition, and hence interferes with students’ ability to inhibit prepotent responses in a concurrent task. To test this, we conducted a preregistered experiment, employing a Bayesian sequential sampling design, where we manipulated smartphone visibility and smartphone notifications during a stop-signal task that measures the ability to inhibit prepotent responses. The task was constructed such that we could disentangle response inhibition from action selection. Results show that the mere visibility of a smartphone is sufficient to experience vigilance and distraction, and that this is enhanced when students receive notifications. Curiously enough, these strong experiences were unrelated to stop-signal task performance. These findings raise new questions about when and how smartphones can impact performance.


2020 ◽  
Vol 386 ◽  
pp. 112586 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Gaillard ◽  
Susan L. Rossell ◽  
Sean P. Carruthers ◽  
Philip J. Sumner ◽  
Patricia T. Michie ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (8) ◽  
pp. 1363-1369 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. E. Hughes ◽  
T. W. Budd ◽  
W. R. Fulham ◽  
S. Lancaster ◽  
W. Woods ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 320-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
David S. Jacobs ◽  
Stephen J. Kohut ◽  
Shan Jiang ◽  
Spyros P. Nikas ◽  
Alexandros Makriyannis ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 233 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corinde E. Wiers ◽  
Christiane K. Gawron ◽  
Sonja Gröpper ◽  
Stephanie Spengler ◽  
Heiner Stuke ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Michael K. Yeung ◽  
Ami Tsuchida ◽  
Lesley K. Fellows

The frontal lobes have long been implicated in inhibitory control, but a full understanding of the underlying mechanisms remains elusive. The stop-signal task has been widely used to probe instructed response inhibition in cognitive neuroscience. The processes involved have been modeled and related to putative brain substrates. However, there has been surprisingly little human lesion research using this task, with the few existing studies implicating different prefrontal regions. Here, we tested the effects of focal prefrontal damage on stop-signal task performance in a large sample of people with chronic focal damage affecting the frontal lobes ( n = 42) and demographically matched healthy people ( n = 60). Patients with damage to the left lateral, right lateral, dorsomedial, or ventromedial frontal lobe had slower stop-signal RT compared to healthy controls. There were systematic differences in the patterns of impairment across frontal subgroups: Those with damage to the left or right lateral and dorsomedial frontal lobes, but not those with ventromedial frontal damage, were slower than controls to “go” as well as to stop. These findings suggest that multiple prefrontal regions make necessary but distinct contributions to stop-signal task performance. As a consequence, stop-signal RT slowing is not strongly localizing within the frontal lobes.


2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 1753-1765 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert P. Spunt ◽  
Matthew D. Lieberman ◽  
Jessica R. Cohen ◽  
Naomi I. Eisenberger

A reliable observation in neuroimaging studies of cognitive control is the response of dorsal ACC (dACC) to events that demand increased cognitive control (e.g., response conflicts and performance errors). This observation is apparently at odds with a comparably reliable association of the dACC with the subjective experience of negative affective states such as pain, fear, and anxiety. Whereas “affective” associates of the dACC are based on studies that explicitly manipulate and/or measure the subjective experience of negative affect, the “cognitive” associates of dACC are based on studies using tasks designed to manipulate the demand for cognitive control, such as the Stroop, flanker, and stop-signal tasks. Critically, extant neuroimaging research has not systematically considered the extent to which these cognitive tasks induce negative affective experiences and, if so, to what extent negative affect can account for any variance in the dACC response during task performance. While undergoing fMRI, participants in this study performed a stop-signal task while regularly reporting their experience of performance on several dimensions. We observed that within-subject variability in the dACC response to stop-signal errors tracked changes in subjective frustration throughout task performance. This association remained when controlling for within-subject variability in subjective reports of cognitive engagement and several performance-related variables indexing task difficulty. These results fit with existing models characterizing the dACC as a hub for monitoring ongoing behavior and motivating adjustments when necessary and further emphasize that such a function may be linked to the subjective experience of negative affect.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document