Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38987364›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Motor inhibition errors and interference suppression errors differ systematically on neural and behavioural features of response monitoring.

Elisa Porth, André Mattes, Jutta Stahl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Elisa PorthDepartment of Individual Differences and Psychological Assessment, University of Cologne, Pohligstraße 1, 50969, Cologne, Germany. elisa.porth@uni-koeln.de.ORCID 0000-0001-5461-302X
André MattesDepartment of Individual Differences and Psychological Assessment, University of Cologne, Pohligstraße 1, 50969, Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4821-8012
Jutta StahlDepartment of Individual Differences and Psychological Assessment, University of Cologne, Pohligstraße 1, 50969, Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3252-180X

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft STA 1035/7-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Action inhibition and error commission are prominent in everyday life. Inhibition comprises at least two facets: motor inhibition and interference suppression. When motor inhibition fails, a strong response impulse cannot be inhibited. When interference suppression fails, we become distracted by irrelevant stimuli. We investigated the neural and behavioural similarities and differences between motor inhibition errors and interference suppression errors systematically from stimulus-onset to post-response adaptation. To enable a direct comparison between both error types, we developed a complex speeded choice task where we assessed the error types in two perceptually similar conditions. Comparing the error types along the processing stream showed that the P2, an early component in the event-related potential associated with sensory gating, is the first marker for differences between the two error types. Further error-specific variations were found for the parietal P3 (associated with context updating and attentional resource allocation), for the lateralized readiness potential (LRP, associated with primary motor cortex activity), and for the P

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyInhibition, PsychologicalPsychomotor PerformanceAdultAttentionEvoked PotentialsFemaleHumansMaleMotor CortexReaction TimeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID38987364
PMCPMC11237018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.