Varying task difficulty in the Go/Nogo task: The effects of inhibitory control, arousal, and perceived effort on ERP components
Highlights
► Go/Nogo difficulty manipulated by three reaction time deadlines: Low, Medium, High. ► Incremental increases in Go/Nogo errors and perceived effort with task difficulty. ► No condition effects found for skin conductance arousal. ► Nogo N2 increased with difficulty but the Nogo P3 showed a Low/Medium > High effect. ► Nogo N1 amplitude increased, but Nogo P2 declined with task difficulty.
Introduction
Inhibitory control refers to the ability to successfully suppress thoughts, behaviour and irrelevant stimuli (Aron et al., 2004). Crucial for the proper functioning of many other cognitive capacities (Clark, 1996), inhibitory control is an important, but often unnoticed, feature of everyday life: Its effective execution potentially means the difference between safely crossing a busy road or endangering oneself to oncoming traffic.
Among the most commonly employed paradigms used to investigate inhibitory processing is the Go/Nogo task, which requires participants to respond to a frequently presented Go stimulus, while withholding a response to a rare Nogo stimulus. Event-related potentials (ERPs) to Go/Nogo tasks typically contain two inhibition-related components: an augmented N2 for Nogo relative to Go stimuli, primarily at frontal sites (e.g. Falkenstein et al., 1999, Fallgatter and Strik, 1991, Oddy et al., 2005), and a more anterior focus for the Nogo P3, where P3 is larger for Nogo than Go stimuli at frontal and central leads. The Nogo N2 has been suggested to reflect the pre-motor ‘need’ for inhibition (Kok, 1986), but more recent research has instead linked the N2 to response conflict (Donkers and van Boxtel, 2004, Nieuwenhuis et al., 2003). By contrast, the Nogo P3 has primarily been related to motor inhibition in recent years (Smith et al., 2006, Smith et al., 2007, Smith et al., 2008, Smith et al., 2010). But further work has also suggested that it may not be linked to inhibition itself, but more to the evaluation of the inhibitory process (Band and van Boxtel, 1999, Bruin et al., 2001). Notably, both components appear to be modulated by different neurobiological pathways (Beste et al., 2008, Beste et al., 2010) supporting the idea that they reflect different inhibition-related sub-processes.
Like other executive functions, inhibitory control is assumed to be a dynamic process that should be influenced by variations in task difficulty. However, relatively little is known about how different experimental parameters affect the behavioural and neural underpinnings of this ability (Beste et al., 2010, Lindqvist and Thorell, 2009, Thorell et al., 2009). There are a number of key reasons why it is important to study the influence of task difficulty on inhibitory control. Firstly, from a clinical perspective, the nature of inhibition deficits can only be ascertained if the paradigms employed are sufficiently difficult to differentiate performance between clinical subjects and healthy controls (Beste et al., 2010, Lindqvist and Thorell, 2009). Further, variations in task difficulty, in and of themselves, have been linked to differences in neural activation, leading to inconsistencies in the Go/Nogo literature (for a meta-analysis see Simmonds et al., 2008). Baseline ERP data are required to clarify these effects. Finally, the possibility of developing targeted inhibition training paradigms as an adjunct to existing rehabilitation programmes may offer a potentially useful aid for individuals suffering from deficits in inhibitory control (for e.g. attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, ADHD; Johnstone et al., 2010, Thorell et al., 2009). Training outcomes in these studies may be enhanced if the approach taken is based on fundamental research into the optimal way to manipulate inhibition difficulty. Thus, studying how task difficulty influences inhibitory control is important from both a ‘pure science’ and applied perspective, and is the major aim of this study.
Previous research examining the influence of task difficulty on inhibition-related ERP components has been varied with respect to methodologies and findings. Jodo and Kayama (1992) manipulated task difficulty with reaction time deadline, asking one group of participants to respond within 300 ms of the Go signal, and another to respond within 500 ms. They reported an enhancement of the Nogo N2 only in the fast responders. Although this effect was interpreted as being due to increased inhibition difficulty, this was unable to be confirmed since no behavioural results for inhibitory performance were reported. In a subsequent investigation, Band et al. (2003) divided participants into one of two instructional conditions: a speed condition, where subjects were required to respond as fast as possible, and a balance condition, where speed as well as accuracy was emphasised. The speed of response was found to modulate both inhibitory performance and ERPs, with increased Nogo errors and Nogo N2 for the speed condition. In contrast to these reports, Smith et al. (2006), who separated participants into ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ responders via median split post-hoc, reported no differences for the N2.
Furthermore, despite clear effects being reported for the N2, the Go/Nogo literature examining the influence of task difficulty on the P3 is limited. Previous investigations have either not considered the P3 (Band et al., 2003, Jodo and Kayama, 1992), or have used a 50/50 Go/Nogo split (Jodo and Kayama, 1992, Smith et al., 2006) which may not reliably induce prepotent response inhibition, depending on the paradigm (e.g. Braver et al., 2001, Tekok-Kilic et al., 2001). Moreover, these studies have generally only employed two difficulty levels (i.e. low vs. high). Given that both theoretical viewpoints (e.g. Cognitive-energetic model; Sanders, 1983) and experimental findings (Wodka et al., 2009) have suggested performance improvements only during moderate rather than easy/hard difficulty levels, the use of the three task difficulty conditions in the present study allows examination of a range of effects, rather than simply assuming linear changes. Thus, one aim of this study was to extend previous research by clarifying the effect of task difficulty (as manipulated by reaction time deadline: RTD) on not only the N2, but also the P3, using a 70/30 Go/Nogo split and three difficulty conditions (Low, Medium and High).
Although the main focus of this study was the influence of task difficulty on inhibitory processing, the measurement of skin conductance level (SCL) — a well-established measure of central nervous system (CNS) arousal (Barry and Sokolov, 1993) — allows examination of the effect of arousal level on inhibitory performance and processing. A review of the literature suggests that arousal may amplify or improve task performance (for a discussion see VaezMousavi et al., 2007), which may be characterised by an inverted-U relationship, where moderate levels of physiological arousal result in optimal performance, with a deterioration in performance seen during low- or high-arousal levels (Yerkes and Dodson, 1908). Additionally, as initially proposed by Yerkes and Dodson (1908), optimal arousal levels may depend on the difficulty of a given task. In line with the findings of Yerkes and Dodson (1908) are results showing that inhibition performance was optimised only at moderate inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs; Wodka et al., 2009). Further work by Barry et al. (2007) has reported that increased arousal, via caffeine ingestion, resulted in not only increased SCL, but also concurrent improvements in Go/Nogo performance. However, findings from research using similar tasks have been mixed, showing no relationship between arousal and performance (Barry et al., 2005, VaezMousavi et al., 2009, VaezMousavi et al., 2007). The paucity of errors in the previous studies may help to explain these results, and as such, the manipulation of task difficulty would ensure greater errors and help to more thoroughly explore the arousal/performance link.
In sum, this study sought to extend previous research by examining the behavioural and neural effects of varying task difficulty, via RTD, on inhibitory processing. To this end, we used a modified version of the Go/Nogo task that required the inhibition of a prepotent response during three task difficulty conditions: Low (1000 ms), Medium (500 ms) and High (300 ms). As mentioned above, the Nogo N2 and Nogo P3 have been associated with different aspects of response inhibition so the ERP analyses focused on these components. While no specific predictions were made for the early ERP components, given the potential modulatory effects of task difficulty on early stimulus processing (e.g. Miller et al., 2011), any differences found would be explored. Moreover, participants provided perceived effort ratings and we recorded skin conductance to assess the contribution of arousal on performance and processing.
Section snippets
Participants
A total of 69 adults enrolled in the present study to fulfil an undergraduate course requirement, with three being excluded according to the selection criteria. To be included in the study, participants were required to refrain from caffeine for 2 h prior to testing and have not taken any psychotropic substances (prescription or illegal) for 24 h prior to testing, or no more than once a month in the previous six months. Participants were also screened for neurological disorders and all reported
Manipulation check and perceived effort
As can be seen in Fig. 2, participants' perceived effort was greater in the High than Medium and Low conditions (Linear: F = 6.64, p = .013, η2 = .104), suggesting that the difficulty manipulation was successful, with greater perceived effort seen with each increase in task difficulty.
Task performance
Means and standard deviations of RT and errors are summarised in Table 1. Consistent with our experimental manipulation, RT to Go stimuli decreased with each RTD reduction (L > M > H; Linear: F = 403.55, p < .001, η2 = .787),
Discussion
The primary aim of this study was to examine the influence of varying task difficulty, by the use of reaction time deadline, on the behavioural and ERP indices of inhibitory control during performance of the Go/Nogo task. In addition, we investigated whether the effect of task difficulty would also extend to the early ERP potentials, task-related arousal and perceived effort.
Conclusions
In summary, this study reports that task difficulty in the Go/Nogo task can be effectively manipulated by varying RTDs. In the context of declines in task performance and the absence of arousal effects, incremental amplitude increases and reductions in latency were seen for the Nogo N2, potentially indicating enhanced response conflict with greater Go/Nogo task demands. In contrast, the Nogo P3 effect was reduced with increasing task difficulty, suggesting that reductions in RTD may serve to
References (78)
- et al.
Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
(2004) - et al.
Inhibitory motor control in stop paradigms: review and reinterpretation of neural mechanisms
Acta Psychologica
(1999) - et al.
Habituation of phasic and tonic components of the orienting reflex
Journal of Psychophysiology
(1993) - et al.
Caffeine effects on ERPs and performance in an auditory Go/NoGo task
Clinical Neurophysiology
(2007) - et al.
Source analysis of the N2 in a cued Go/NoGo task
Cognitive Brain Research
(2005) - et al.
Arousal-state modulation in children with AD/HD
Clinical Neurophysiology
(2009) - et al.
Response inhibition in Huntington's disease — a study using ERPs and sLORETA
Neuropsychologia
(2008) - et al.
Response inhibition subprocesses and dopaminergic pathways: basal ganglia disease effects
Neuropsychologia
(2010) Contributions of inhibitory mechanisms to unified theory in neuroscience and psychology
Brain and Cognition
(1996)- et al.
The N2 in go/no-go tasks reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition
Brain and Cognition
(2004)
Effects of attention and stimulus probability on ERPs in a Go/Nogo task
Biological Psychology
Inhibition, conflict and the Nogo-N2
Clinical Neurophysiology
ERP components in Go/Nogo tasks and their relation to inhibition
Acta Psychologica
Revisiting the oddball paradigm. Non-target vs. neutral stimuli and the evaluation of ERP attentional effects
Neuropsychologia
Effects of practice on the P300 in a Go/NoGo task
EEG Clinica Neurophysiology
Relation of a negative ERP component to response inhibition in the Go/Nogo task
Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology
Auditory evoked potentials, motor potentials and reaction time
Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology
Event-related potentials to conjunctions of spatial frequency and orientation as a function of stimulus parameters and response requirements
Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology
Effects of degradation of visual stimuli on components of the event-related potential (ERP) in go/nogo reaction tasks
Biological Psychology
Event-related-potential (ERP) reflections of mental resources: a review and synthesis
Biological Psychology
The influence of perceptual and semantic categorization on inhibitory processing as measured by the N2–P3 inhibitory responses
Brain and Cognition
How semantic categorization influences inhibitory processing in middle-childhood: an event related potentials study
Brain and Cognition
Scalp distributions of event-related potentials: an ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models
Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology
A novel approach to the physiological measurement of mental workload
International Journal of Psychophysiology
Effects of go/nogo task event-related potentials following somatosensory stimulation
Clinical Neurophysiology
Frontal, temporal and lateralized brain function in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a psychophysiological and neuropsychological viewpoint on development
Behavior and Brain Research
Conflict and inhibition in the cued-Go/Nogo task
Clinical Neurophysiology
Stimulus experiencemodifies auditory neuromagnetic responses in young andolder listeners
Hearing Research
Mapping motor inhibition: conjunctive brain activations across different versions of go/no-go and stop tasks
NeuroImage
The nogo P300 ‘anteriorisation effect’ and response inhibition
Clinical Neurophysiology
Towards a model of stress and performance
Acta Psychologica
Meta-analysis of Go/No-go tasks demonstrating that fMRI activation associated with response inhibition is task-dependent
Neuropsychologia
On the use of event-related potentials to auditory stimuli in the Go/NoGo task
Psychiatry Research — Neuroimaging
Inhibitory processing during the Go/Nogo task: an ERP analysis of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Clinical Neurophysiology
Effects of pre-stimulus processing on subsequent events in a warned Go/NoGo paradigm: response preparation, execution, and inhibition
International Journal of Psychophysiology
Response priming in the Go/NoGo task: the N2 reflects neither inhibition nor conflict
Clinical Neurophysiology
Movement-related potentials in the Go/NoGo task: the P3 reflects both cognitive and motor inhibition
Clinical Neurophysiology
Sequence effects support the conflict theory of N2 and P3 in the Go/NoGo task
International Journal of Psychophysiology
Readiness to respond in a target detection task: pre- and post-stimulus event-related potentials in normal subjects
Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology
Cited by (87)
Cognitive control training for urgency: A pilot randomized controlled trial in an acute clinical sample
2021, Behaviour Research and TherapyInfluence of negative mood on restrained eaters’ memory suppression of food cues: An event-related potentials study
2021, AppetiteCitation Excerpt :First, the P2 results might suggest that under negative emotional states, restrained eaters may need to allocate more cognitive resources in order to concentrate on a task. The P2 component is typically considered to be exogenous (Benikos, Johnstone, & Roodenrys, 2013), and this positive ERP component in the frontal or central regions usually occurs during tasks in which attention must be allocated to an event's visual characteristics; hence, enhanced P2 was generally considered to be associated with the degree of attention allocated to tasks (Mecklinger et al., 2009). Evidence from studies of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder also showed reduced P2 in an attention selection task relative to a control group (Johnstone et al., 2009).