4.5 Article

The development of the error-related negativity (ERN) and its relationship with anxiety: Evidence from 8 to 13 year-olds

Journal

DEVELOPMENTAL COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 2, Issue 1, Pages 152-161

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2011.09.005

Keywords

ERN; Error-related negativity; Anxiety; Children; Adolescents; Development

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH069942] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH069942, R01 MH069942-06A1] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Because anxiety disorders appear to follow developmental trajectories that begin early in development, it may be useful to examine the neurodevelopmental correlates of specific cognitive processes that have been linked to anxiety. For instance, the error-related negativity (ERN) is a negative deflection in the event-related potential that is maximal approximately 50 ms following the commission of errors at fronto-central electrode sites, and has consistently been found to be more negative among anxious adults. Much less, however, is known about anxiety and the ERN in children-especially when this relationship develops. We recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) while 55 children aged 8-13 performed an arrow version of the flankers task. Parents and children both reported on children's anxiety. Results suggest that the relationship between the ERN and anxiety changes as a function of age. Among older children, a larger (i.e., more negative) ERN was significantly related to increased anxiety based on parent report. Although the relationship was less robust, the relationship between ERN and anxiety was opposite among younger children. These results are discussed in terms of existing work on anxiety and the ERN, and the need for longitudinal and developmental studies on the relationship between ERN and anxiety. (c) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available