Skip Navigation



Cerebral Cortex Advance Access published online on April 24, 2008
Cerebral Cortex, doi:10.1093/cercor/bhn063
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/1/134    most recent
bhn063v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Boehler, C.N.
Right arrow Articles by Hopf, J.-M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Boehler, C.N.
Right arrow Articles by Hopf, J.-M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Sensory MEG Responses Predict Successful and Failed Inhibition in a Stop-Signal Task

C.N. Boehler1, T.F. Münte2, R.M. Krebs3, H.-J. Heinze1,3, M.A. Schoenfeld1,3,4 and J.-M. Hopf1,3

1 Leibniz-Institute for Neurobiology, 39118 Magdeburg, Germany, 2 Department of Neuropsychology, Otto-von-Guericke-University, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany, 3 Department of Neurology II, Otto-von-Guericke-University, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany, 4 Kliniken Schmieder, 78476 Allensbach, Germany

Address corresponding to C. Nicolas Boehler, Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology, Brenneckstr. 6, 39118 Magdeburg, Germany. Email: boehler{at}neuro2.med.uni-magdeburg.de.

In the present study magnetoencephalographic recordings were performed to investigate the neural mechanisms underlying the stopping of manual responses. Subjects performed in a Stop-signal task in which Go-stimuli (S1), requiring a rapid motor response, were sometimes rapidly followed by a Stop-stimulus (S2) indicating to withhold the already initiated response to S1. Success of stopping strongly depended on the early perceptual processing of S1 and S2 reflected by the magnetic N1 component. Enhanced processing of S1 facilitated the execution of the movement, whereas enhanced processing of S2 favored its inhibition. This suggests that the processing resources for the subsequent stimuli are limited and need to be shared. This sharing of resources appeared to arise from adjustments made on a trial-by-trial basis, in that systematic reaction time prolongations on Go-trials following Stop-trials versus following Go-trials were accompanied by attenuated sensory processing to the Go-stimulus similar to that seen in successful versus unsuccessful stopping in Stop-trials.

Key Words: executive function • inhibition • MEG • posterior cingulate gyrus • stop-paradigm • visual attention


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.