4.7 Article

Spatiotemporal characterization of response inhibition

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 76, 期 1, 页码 272-281

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.03.011

关键词

ERPs; preSMA; P3; Response inhibition

资金

  1. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (MINECO) of Spain [PSI2011-26314, PSI2012-37535]
  2. MINECO [JCI-2010-07766]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite an extensive literature on the neural substrates of response inhibition, when and where this process occurs in the brain remain unclear. The present study aimed to shed light on this issue by exploiting the high temporal resolution of the event-related potentials (ERPs) and recent advances in source localization. Temporo-spatial principal component analysis was employed to define more precisely the two ERP components most often associated with response inhibition (i.e., frontocentral N2 and frontocentral P3), as well as to improve the accuracy of source localization. In addition, participants (N = 40) performed a modified Go/Nogo task composed of three types of stimuli (frequent-Go, infrequent-Go, and infrequent-Nogo), which allowed us to dissociate neural activity associated with response inhibition from that related to novelty processing by directly contrasting nogo and go trials matched with respect to frequency of occurrence. Scalp ERP data indicated that the frontocentral P3, but not the frontocentral N2, showed larger amplitudes for infrequent-Nogo than for infrequent-Go trials. Source localization data parallel the results obtained at the scalp level: only P3-related activity showed differences between infrequent-Nogo and infrequent-Go trials. This increased activation was observed predominantly in the presupplementary motor area (preSMA). Present results suggest that the frontocentral P3 and the preSMA play a core role in response inhibition. The findings of this study substantiate and complement previous results obtained by hemodynamic procedures. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据