Chronic academic stress facilitates response inhibition: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence

Author(s):  
Heming Gao ◽  
Xiaoman Wang ◽  
Mengjiao Huang ◽  
Mingming Qi
2009 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Redmond G. O'Connell ◽  
Paul M. Dockree ◽  
Mark A. Bellgrove ◽  
Alessandra Turin ◽  
Seamus Ward ◽  
...  

Disentangling the component processes that contribute to human executive control is a key challenge for cognitive neuroscience. Here, we employ event-related potentials to provide electrophysiological evidence that action errors during a go/no-go task can result either from sustained attention failures or from failures of response inhibition, and that these two processes are temporally and physiologically dissociable, although the behavioral error—a nonintended response—is the same. Thirteen right-handed participants performed a version of a go/no-go task in which stimuli were presented in a fixed and predictable order, thus encouraging attentional drift, and a second version in which an identical set of stimuli was presented in a random order, thus placing greater emphasis on response inhibition. Electrocortical markers associated with goal maintenance (late positivity, alpha synchronization) distinguished correct and incorrect performance in the fixed condition, whereas errors in the random condition were linked to a diminished N2–P3 inhibitory complex. In addition, the amplitude of the error-related negativity did not differ between correct and incorrect responses in the fixed condition, consistent with the view that errors in this condition do not arise from a failure to resolve response competition. Our data provide an electrophysiological dissociation of sustained attention and response inhibition.


2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
pp. 2481-2493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrike M. Krämer ◽  
Robert T. Knight ◽  
Thomas F. Münte

People are able to adapt their behavior to changing environmental contingencies by rapidly inhibiting or modifying their actions. Response inhibition is often studied in the stop-signal paradigm that requires the suppression of an already prepared motor response. Less is known about situations calling for a change of motor plans such that the prepared response has to be withheld but another has to be executed instead. In the present study, we investigated whether electrophysiological data can provide evidence for distinct inhibitory mechanisms when stopping or changing a response. Participants were instructed to perform in a choice RT task with two classes of embedded critical trials: Stop signals called for the inhibition of any response, whereas change signals required participants to inhibit the prepared response and execute another one instead. Under both conditions, we observed differences in go-stimulus processing, suggesting a faster response preparation in failed compared with successful inhibitions. In contrast to stop-signal trials, changing a response did not elicit the inhibition-related frontal N2 and did not modulate the parietal mu power decrease. The results suggest that compared with changing a response, additional frontal and parietal regions are engaged when having to inhibit a response.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. e51110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Zhang ◽  
Rong Ye ◽  
Fengqiong Yu ◽  
Zhaolun Cao ◽  
Chunyan Zhu ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 67 (9) ◽  
pp. 1697-1719 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Vainio ◽  
H. Ala-Salomäki ◽  
T. Huovilainen ◽  
H. Nikkinen ◽  
M. Salo ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Vainio ◽  
H. Alén ◽  
S. Hiltunen ◽  
K. Lehikoinen ◽  
H. Lindbäck ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document