Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In the Eriksen task, we examined the hypothesis ( Iwaki, 1998 ) that a negative event‐related potential, which was enlarged at the frontal site synchronized with the presentation of an erroneous response causing stimulus, is related to the response‐stop function. Fourteen subjects responded selectively with their hands to the stimuli that consisted of a central target letter and surrounding compatible noise letters (e.g., HHHHH) or incompatible noise (e.g., SHHHS for small‐conflict condition or SSHSS for large‐conflict). The results showed that the increased negativity for the incompatible stimuli was synchronized with the stimulus onset but not with the response. Based on the hypothesis above, it is predicted that greater enhancement of an erroneous response by a stimulus causes the response‐stop to work harder in order to avoid an error, and this results in the larger negativity. This was supported by the evidence showing that the negativity was largest for the large‐conflict incompatible stimulus, followed by the small‐conflict, and then the compatible. We also discuss the possibility that the negativity is the NO‐GO potential concerned with the response‐stop function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iwaki et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: