Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31354880›Full record

ArticleCognitive neurodynamics2019

Flanker paradigm contains conflict and distraction factors with distinct neural mechanisms: an ERP analysis in a 2-1 mapping task.

Shu Zhou, Shenglan Xiong, Wenwen Cheng, You Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive neurodynamics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shu Zhou *1Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong China.ORCID 0000-0001-8325-4935
Shenglan Xiong *1Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong China.
Wenwen Cheng1Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong China.
You Wang2Department of Psychology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University (Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Tropical Disease Research), Guangzhou, Guangdong China.ORCID 0000-0001-5746-2263

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Behavioral studies using the flanker 2-1 mapping task suggest that both stimulus and response conflicts contribute to flanker conflict effect. However, both are intertwined with distraction effect. Their underlying neural mechanisms remain unclear. We applied a perceptual flanker 2-1 mapping task to 24 healthy young adults, while the event-related potentials were recorded. The task included stimulus-incongruent (SI), response-incongruent (RI), congruent (CO) and neutral (NE) stimuli. Our reaction time data demonstrated conflict effect, distraction effect and their interaction. Furthermore, the conflict factor successively enhanced the frontal P2 (160-240 ms), the posterior N2pc (200-240 ms), the fronto-central and the right frontal N2b (240-420 ms), and the posterior N2c (320-420 ms). Only the frontal P2 was larger for RI than SI. The distraction factor increased the right N2pc and reduced the left parietal P3b (460-480 ms). Overall, our findings suggested that the flanker conflict involved an early attentional processing of task-relevant and distractive information, and a later processing of conflict evaluation and response inhibition.

Indexed as

2-1 mappingCognitive controlDistractionEvent-related potentials (ERP)Flanker conflictStatistical parametric mapping (SPM)

Identifiers

PMID31354880
PMCPMC6624229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.