ArticleExperimental brain research2021
Response inhibition and memory updating in the count/nocount task: an ERP study.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chronic academic stress facilitates response inhibition: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
- Different ways to forget: Electrophysiological mechanisms underlying item-method directed forgetting of angry and neutral faces.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The present study aimed to separate the neural activities between response inhibition and memory updating processes in the Count/Nocount task. Memory load was manipulated to investigate the memory updating process. Within each trial, participants were asked to count/withhold counting the number of O/X letters in the Count/Nocount task. The participants were asked to silently add 1 if a Count letter was presented in the low load condition, and add 2 in the high load condition. Data from 28 healthy participants showed that: (1) in both high load and low load conditions, the latencies of P2 and N2 components were shorter for the Nocount than Count trials, indicating faster attentional orienting and conflict monitoring processes for the Nocount stimuli (i.e., inhibition processes triggered by the Nocount stimuli against those response execution processes triggered by Count stimuli); (2) more positive frontal P3 amplitudes were evoked for the Nocount relative to the Count stimuli, indicating a more intensive response inhibition process for the Nocount trials; (3) a more positive parietal P3 component was evoked for the low load relative to high load condition, indicating a more intensive working memory updating process for the high load condition. This load effect was absent for the frontal P3 component, suggesting that the frontal P3 might not be associated with the memory updating process. In sum, both the cognitive inhibition process (reflected by the frontal P3 component) and working memory updating process (reflected by the parietal P3 component) appear to be involved in the Count/Nocount task.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34491370What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.