Limits...
Anticipatory regulation of action control in a simon task: behavioral, electrophysiological, and FMRI correlates.

Strack G, Kaufmann C, Kehrer S, Brandt S, Stürmer B - Front Psychol (2013)

Bottom Line: Cues informed either about the upcoming (1) spatial stimulus-response compatibility (rule cues), or (2) the stimulus location (position cues), or (3) were non-informative.Pre-SMA and ventrolateral prefrontal activation after rule cues correlated with the effective use of rule cues in behavioral performance.Our data point to the importance to disentangle different anticipatory adjustments that might also include the prevention of upcoming conflict via task re-coding.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Berlin, Germany.

ABSTRACT
With the present study we investigated cue-induced preparation in a Simon task and measured electroencephalogram and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data in two within-subjects sessions. Cues informed either about the upcoming (1) spatial stimulus-response compatibility (rule cues), or (2) the stimulus location (position cues), or (3) were non-informative. Only rule cues allowed anticipating the upcoming compatibility condition. Position cues allowed anticipation of the upcoming location of the Simon stimulus but not its compatibility condition. Rule cues elicited fastest and most accurate performance for both compatible and incompatible trials. The contingent negative variation (CNV) in the event-related potential (ERP) of the cue-target interval is an index of anticipatory preparation and was magnified after rule cues. The N2 in the post-target ERP as a measure of online action control was reduced in Simon trials after rule cues. Although compatible trials were faster than incompatible trials in all cue conditions only non-informative cues revealed a compatibility effect in additional indicators of Simon task conflict like accuracy and the N2. We thus conclude that rule cues induced anticipatory re-coding of the Simon task that did not involve cognitive conflict anymore. fMRI revealed that rule cues yielded more activation of the left rostral, dorsal, and ventral prefrontal cortex as well as the pre-SMA as compared to POS and NON-cues. Pre-SMA and ventrolateral prefrontal activation after rule cues correlated with the effective use of rule cues in behavioral performance. Position cues induced a smaller CNV effect and exhibited less prefrontal and pre-SMA contributions in fMRI. Our data point to the importance to disentangle different anticipatory adjustments that might also include the prevention of upcoming conflict via task re-coding.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

The contingent negative variation (CNV) at the Fz electrode for rule cues (RULE), position cues (POS), and non-informative cues (NON). The analysis refers to the terminal second before target onset.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3569607&req=5

Figure 4: The contingent negative variation (CNV) at the Fz electrode for rule cues (RULE), position cues (POS), and non-informative cues (NON). The analysis refers to the terminal second before target onset.

Mentions: An ANOVA of the cue-locked CNV amplitude (see Figure 4) including all electrodes and cue types revealed an interaction of electrode and cue condition for the time window 1 s before target onset, F(118,3186) = 4.09, p < 0.001. Additional ANOVAs each comparing two cue conditions showed that RULE cues elicited a greater CNV compared to NON-cues across all electrodes, F(59,1593) = 5.62, p = 0.001. RULE cues also generated overall more negativity compared to POS cues, F(59,1593) = 3.70, p < 0.01. The CNV amplitude for NON-was less pronounced than for POS, F(59, 1593) = 2.26, p < 0.05. A post hoct-test for compatibility was calculated solely for RULE cues because only in this condition compatibility was predicted prior target onset: this test revealed no compatibility effect in the anticipatory CNV after RULE cues, F < 1.


Anticipatory regulation of action control in a simon task: behavioral, electrophysiological, and FMRI correlates.

Strack G, Kaufmann C, Kehrer S, Brandt S, Stürmer B - Front Psychol (2013)

The contingent negative variation (CNV) at the Fz electrode for rule cues (RULE), position cues (POS), and non-informative cues (NON). The analysis refers to the terminal second before target onset.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3569607&req=5

Figure 4: The contingent negative variation (CNV) at the Fz electrode for rule cues (RULE), position cues (POS), and non-informative cues (NON). The analysis refers to the terminal second before target onset.
Mentions: An ANOVA of the cue-locked CNV amplitude (see Figure 4) including all electrodes and cue types revealed an interaction of electrode and cue condition for the time window 1 s before target onset, F(118,3186) = 4.09, p < 0.001. Additional ANOVAs each comparing two cue conditions showed that RULE cues elicited a greater CNV compared to NON-cues across all electrodes, F(59,1593) = 5.62, p = 0.001. RULE cues also generated overall more negativity compared to POS cues, F(59,1593) = 3.70, p < 0.01. The CNV amplitude for NON-was less pronounced than for POS, F(59, 1593) = 2.26, p < 0.05. A post hoct-test for compatibility was calculated solely for RULE cues because only in this condition compatibility was predicted prior target onset: this test revealed no compatibility effect in the anticipatory CNV after RULE cues, F < 1.

Bottom Line: Cues informed either about the upcoming (1) spatial stimulus-response compatibility (rule cues), or (2) the stimulus location (position cues), or (3) were non-informative.Pre-SMA and ventrolateral prefrontal activation after rule cues correlated with the effective use of rule cues in behavioral performance.Our data point to the importance to disentangle different anticipatory adjustments that might also include the prevention of upcoming conflict via task re-coding.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Berlin, Germany.

ABSTRACT
With the present study we investigated cue-induced preparation in a Simon task and measured electroencephalogram and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data in two within-subjects sessions. Cues informed either about the upcoming (1) spatial stimulus-response compatibility (rule cues), or (2) the stimulus location (position cues), or (3) were non-informative. Only rule cues allowed anticipating the upcoming compatibility condition. Position cues allowed anticipation of the upcoming location of the Simon stimulus but not its compatibility condition. Rule cues elicited fastest and most accurate performance for both compatible and incompatible trials. The contingent negative variation (CNV) in the event-related potential (ERP) of the cue-target interval is an index of anticipatory preparation and was magnified after rule cues. The N2 in the post-target ERP as a measure of online action control was reduced in Simon trials after rule cues. Although compatible trials were faster than incompatible trials in all cue conditions only non-informative cues revealed a compatibility effect in additional indicators of Simon task conflict like accuracy and the N2. We thus conclude that rule cues induced anticipatory re-coding of the Simon task that did not involve cognitive conflict anymore. fMRI revealed that rule cues yielded more activation of the left rostral, dorsal, and ventral prefrontal cortex as well as the pre-SMA as compared to POS and NON-cues. Pre-SMA and ventrolateral prefrontal activation after rule cues correlated with the effective use of rule cues in behavioral performance. Position cues induced a smaller CNV effect and exhibited less prefrontal and pre-SMA contributions in fMRI. Our data point to the importance to disentangle different anticipatory adjustments that might also include the prevention of upcoming conflict via task re-coding.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus