ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2022
A possibility of error-related processing contamination in the No-go N2: The effect of partial-error trials on response inhibition processing.
Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 2022. 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.
- Measuring neurodevelopment of inhibitory control in children using naturalistic virtual reality.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A possibility of error-related processing contamination in the No-go N2: The effect of partial-error trials on response inhibition processing.The European journal of 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated whether error-related negativity (ERN) elicited by partial errors and No-go N2 represent distinct or similar components. We also investigated whether the error positivity (Pe) and No-go P3 represent distinct or similar components. Partial-error trials are behaviourally classified as correct trials but preceded by covert muscular activities. Recent studies have reported that analysing partial-error trials is useful for investigating the functional roles of ERN and No-go N2. In this study, 23 participants performed a Go/No-go flanker task. They performed nine blocks of 60 trials each. Stimulus-locked event-related potentials (ERPs) were averaged separately for Go-congruent pure-correct trials, Go-incongruent pure-correct trials and No-go pure-correct trials. In addition, we compared the stimulus-locked ERPs among No-go pure-correct trials, No-go partial-error trials, Go-incongruent pure-correct trials and Go-incongruent partial-error trials. Electromyogram (EMG)-locked ERPs were averaged separately for correct trials, overt errors in No-go trials, partial errors in No-go trials, overt errors in incongruent trials and partial errors in incongruent trials. N2 was remarkably larger in No-go partial-error trials than in No-go pure-correct trials. Consistent with previous findings, the No-go partial-error N2 might reflect error-related processing. P3 amplitudes were larger in the No-go trials than in both the Go-congruent and Go-incongruent trials. These results suggest that the No-go P3, but not the No-go N2, might reflect inhibition of overt movement. The present findings provide further evidence that the previously reported increase in No-go N2 may be due to an overlap of the ERN elicited by partial errors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.