RESPONSE COMPATIBILITY AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EVENT-RELATED
POTENTIALS AND THE TIMING OF A MOTOR RESPONSE.
Goodin DS, Aminoff MJ, Chequer RS, Ortiz TA.
Box 0114, Room 794-M, Department of Neurology, University of California,
San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, Tel: (415) 476-1986, Fax: (415) 476-
APStracts 3:0166N, 1996.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Earlier studies have shown that changes in the difficulty of sensory
discrimination in a choice reaction-time task results in a prolongation of the
peak latency for several components of the long-latency event-related
potential (ERP). Using the technique of response-locked averaging we have
previously shown that manipulation of the difficulty of sensory discrimination
also affects response execution as assessed by the interval between the ERP
and onset of the response. The present paper examines the hypothesis that
changing the compatibility of the responses may also affect the difficulty of
the discrimination, as well as the execution of the response, as assessed by
the interval between stimulus onset and the ERP. Such an effect of response
compatibility would provide further evidence for the close integration of
motor and sensory processes in the performance of choice reaction-time tasks.
2. We continuously recorded the electroencephalogram (EEG) from the scalp and
the electromyogram (EMG) from the responding muscles in both compatible and
non-compatible visual choice reaction-time tasks. In the compatible task
subjects responded to a lateralized visual stimulus with the hand ipsilateral
to the stimulus, whereas in the non-compatible task they responded with the
contralateral hand. EEG and EMG responses were analyzed and averaged off-line,
aligning the waveforms by either stimulus onset (stimulus-synchronized
averages) or response onset (response-synchronized averages) and averaged
separately for both correct and incorrect response outcomes. 3. Response-times
were significantly faster for frequent stimuli than rare stimuli and were
significantly faster to rare stimuli in the compatible than the non-compatible
condition. In responses to the frequent stimuli (where both hands were
required to respond), the right hand was slightly but consistently faster than
the left hand. The right hand also accounted for 83% of the errors made. 4.
Stimulus-synchronized and response-synchronized ERPs to either frequent or
rare stimuli had a similar appearance for correct responses in both the
compatible and non-compatible conditions. The coupling of the response to the
ERP for the rare stimuli, however, was different for the two
conditions[tilde]nthe response occurred later relative to the ERP components
in the response-synchronized average in the non-compatible condition compared
to the compatible condition. By contrast the coupling of the ERPs to the onset
of the stimulus was the same in the two conditions. 5. Stimulus-synchronized
averages for error responses in which the rare tone was mistaken for a
frequent tone showed early sensory processing (as judged by the ERPs) that was
similar to that of correct responses to the rare stimuli. Following the
apparent P2 component of the cerebral response, however, the processing
differed, with a superimposed broad negativity possibly reflecting awareness
by the subject that a mistake had been made. By contrast, the response-
synchronized averages for these error trials appeared like those to frequent
stimuli, with the response being coupled to the P2 component of the cerebral
response. 6. These results suggest that response compatibility affects
response selection processes but does not alter sensory discrimination.
However, despite the similarly tight coupling of the response to the ERP in
both the compatible and non-compatible conditions, the response occurred later
relative to the ERPs in the non-compatible condition. This suggests that
different components of the ERP are responsible for triggering the response in
different circumstances. Our observations on the error trials suggests that
the decision to respond (on these trials) is based on the occurrence of
cerebral events that are evoked by either rare or frequent stimuli whereas
this decision (on correct response trials) is based on cerebral events
elicited only by the rare stimuli.
Received 5 September 1995; accepted in final form 13 August 1996.
APS Manuscript Number J584-5.
Article publication pending J. Neurophysiol.
ISSN 1080-4757 Copyright 1996 The American Physiological Society.
Published in APStracts on 29 August 1996