TY - JOUR
T1 - The error-related negativity associated with different strength of stimulus-response interference
AU - Masaki, Hiroaki
AU - Murphy, Timothy I.
AU - Desjardins, James A.
AU - Segalowitz, Sidney J.
N1 - Funding Information:
We would like to thank Nozomi Kato and William Tays for their help with the data collection and data analysis, and acknowledge support from two Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [(C)8530572 and (C)21530774] from the JSPS, two Grants-in-Aid [the GCOE program and KIBANKEISEI(2010)] from the MEXT, a Grant for Special Research Projects from Waseda University Projects (2008A-505), and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We would also like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
PY - 2012/4
Y1 - 2012/4
N2 - Objective: The present study was aimed at clarifying the effect of stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) interference on the ERN. Methods: We compared ERNs in two tasks differing in the level of interference, an arrow (AR) task classified as a Simon task and a more complex arrow-orientation (AO) task classified as a spatial-Stroop task. We also compared ERNs between partial errors (with initial incorrect movement corrected by a proper full response) and overt (uncorrected) errors. Results: Behavioral response time and error rate indicated that both interference and ERN amplitude were larger for the AO task than for the AR task. There was no significant difference in the ERN amplitude between the partial and overt errors. Conclusions: The ERN becomes larger as a function of the SRC interference. Significance: Our study presented evidence that the ERN may represent response-monitoring associated with the SRC interference.
AB - Objective: The present study was aimed at clarifying the effect of stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) interference on the ERN. Methods: We compared ERNs in two tasks differing in the level of interference, an arrow (AR) task classified as a Simon task and a more complex arrow-orientation (AO) task classified as a spatial-Stroop task. We also compared ERNs between partial errors (with initial incorrect movement corrected by a proper full response) and overt (uncorrected) errors. Results: Behavioral response time and error rate indicated that both interference and ERN amplitude were larger for the AO task than for the AR task. There was no significant difference in the ERN amplitude between the partial and overt errors. Conclusions: The ERN becomes larger as a function of the SRC interference. Significance: Our study presented evidence that the ERN may represent response-monitoring associated with the SRC interference.
KW - Error-related negativity (ERN)
KW - Interference
KW - Response-conflict
KW - Response-monitoring
KW - Stimulus-response compatibility
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84857785752&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84857785752&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.clinph.2011.07.043
DO - 10.1016/j.clinph.2011.07.043
M3 - Article
C2 - 21873110
AN - SCOPUS:84857785752
SN - 1388-2457
VL - 123
SP - 689
EP - 699
JO - Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology - Electromyography and Motor Control
JF - Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology - Electromyography and Motor Control
IS - 4
ER -