ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2024
Electrodermal lability and sensorimotor preparation: effects on reaction time, contingent negative variation, and heart rate.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Electrodermal lability is a trait-like measure of spontaneous sympathetic resting activity. In the present study, we addressed whether interindividual differences in this lability have an impact on the reaction time (RT) and on two physiological indicators of a goal-oriented sensorimotor preparation in a long-running, forewarned RT task (S1-S2 paradigm). The two indicators were the brain's contingent negative variation (CNV) and a heart rate deceleration (HRD). The interindividual differences were determined by counting spontaneous skin conductance fluctuations during a 5-min resting phase and dividing the subjects into two groups: individuals below (stable) and above (labile) the median of these fluctuations. In the task, labile individuals had a shorter RT compared with stable individuals and showed in the final phase of preparation in both physiological indicators the stronger response. Thus, lability-dependent effects in forewarned RT tasks cannot be explained by differences in stimulus-driven or passively controlled processes alone. Rather, goal-oriented, deliberately controlled processes that serve to adequately prepare for an imperative stimulus-the S2 in our paradigm-also must be considered to explain them. Labile individuals not only react faster than stable ones but also intentionally prepare themselves more appropriately for the imperative stimulus. A norepinephrine hypothesis focusing on the tonic activity of the locus coeruleus (LC) is proposed as an explanation for these and other lability-dependent effects. The frequency of spontaneous electrodermal fluctuations at rest may represent a peripheral, noninvasive, and easily measurable indicator of the baseline LC activity during wakefulness.
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.