The neural dynamics of stimulus and response conflict processing as a function of response complexity and task demands.
Repository Usage Stats
Both stimulus and response conflict can disrupt behavior by slowing response times and decreasing accuracy. Although several neural activations have been associated with conflict processing, it is unclear how specific any of these are to the type of stimulus conflict or the amount of response conflict. Here, we recorded electrical brain activity, while manipulating the type of stimulus conflict in the task (spatial [Flanker] versus semantic [Stroop]) and the amount of response conflict (two versus four response choices). Behaviorally, responses were slower to incongruent versus congruent stimuli across all task and response types, along with overall slowing for higher response-mapping complexity. The earliest incongruency-related neural effect was a short-duration frontally-distributed negativity at ~200 ms that was only present in the Flanker spatial-conflict task. At longer latencies, the classic fronto-central incongruency-related negativity 'N(inc)' was observed for all conditions, but was larger and ~100 ms longer in duration with more response options. Further, the onset of the motor-related lateralized readiness potential (LRP) was earlier for the two vs. four response sets, indicating that smaller response sets enabled faster motor-response preparation. The late positive complex (LPC) was present in all conditions except the two-response Stroop task, suggesting this late conflict-related activity is not specifically related to task type or response-mapping complexity. Importantly, across tasks and conditions, the LRP onset at or before the conflict-related N(inc), indicating that motor preparation is a rapid, automatic process that interacts with the conflict-detection processes after it has begun. Together, these data highlight how different conflict-related processes operate in parallel and depend on both the cognitive demands of the task and the number of response options.
Published Version (Please cite this version)10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.01.035
Publication InfoDonohue, Sarah E; Appelbaum, Lawrence G; McKay, Cameron C; & Woldorff, Marty G (2016). The neural dynamics of stimulus and response conflict processing as a function of response complexity and task demands. Neuropsychologia, 84. pp. 14-28. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.01.035. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/12003.
This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
More InfoShow full item record
Lawrence Gregory Appelbaum
Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Greg Appelbaum is an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences in the Duke University School of Medicine. Dr. Appelbaum's research interests primarily concern the brain mechanisms underlying visual cognition, how these capabilities differ among individuals, and how they can be improved through behavioral, neurofeedback, and neuromodulation interventions. Within the field of cognitive neuroscience, his research has addressed visual pe
Marty G. Woldorff
Professor in Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Dr. Woldorff's main research interest is in the cognitive neuroscience of attention. At each and every moment of our lives, we are bombarded by a welter of sensory information coming at us from a myriad of directions and through our various sensory modalities -- much more than we can fully process. We must continuously select and extract the most important information from this welter of sensory inputs. How the human brain accomplishes this is one of the core challenges of modern cognitive neuro
Alphabetical list of authors with Scholars@Duke profiles.
Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy
Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info