Stimulus-Response Compatibility (SRC) refers to the fact that some tasks are performed easier and better than others because of the way stimuli and responses are paired with each other. To assess the brain responses t...Stimulus-Response Compatibility (SRC) refers to the fact that some tasks are performed easier and better than others because of the way stimuli and responses are paired with each other. To assess the brain responses to stimulus-response conflicts, we investigated the behavioral (accuracy and Reaction Times: RTs) as well as the physiological response (Lateralized Readiness Potentials: LRP) modulations in a positional blocked and a conditional mixed design in twelve university students. Results revealed that the performance was less accurate and the RTs, as well as the LRP onset, were delayed under the mixed conditional design. A greater compatibility effect was also noted on accuracy, RTs and LRP onset latency in the mixed design. Consistent with these findings, smaller peak activation at fronto-central areas suggests that more selective inhibition is needed in a mixed design context. Despite a smaller activation, the topographical distribution is similar in both designs. These results indicate that the translation time between stimulus- and response codes are greater under the mixed instruction, while the similar LRP topography suggests that common neural structures underlie LRPs in response to both type of designs.展开更多
文摘Stimulus-Response Compatibility (SRC) refers to the fact that some tasks are performed easier and better than others because of the way stimuli and responses are paired with each other. To assess the brain responses to stimulus-response conflicts, we investigated the behavioral (accuracy and Reaction Times: RTs) as well as the physiological response (Lateralized Readiness Potentials: LRP) modulations in a positional blocked and a conditional mixed design in twelve university students. Results revealed that the performance was less accurate and the RTs, as well as the LRP onset, were delayed under the mixed conditional design. A greater compatibility effect was also noted on accuracy, RTs and LRP onset latency in the mixed design. Consistent with these findings, smaller peak activation at fronto-central areas suggests that more selective inhibition is needed in a mixed design context. Despite a smaller activation, the topographical distribution is similar in both designs. These results indicate that the translation time between stimulus- and response codes are greater under the mixed instruction, while the similar LRP topography suggests that common neural structures underlie LRPs in response to both type of designs.
