Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Somatic responses in behavioral inhibition.

Paul Whitney1, John M Hinson, Aaron Wirick

  • 1Department of Psychology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164-4820, USA. pwhitney@wsu.edu

Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience
|June 30, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

An Improved Rapid and Sensitive Long Amplicon Method for Nanopore-Based RSV Whole-Genome Sequencing.

Influenza and other respiratory viruses·2025
Same author

Sleep restriction and age effects on distinct aspects of cognition in adolescents.

Sleep·2024
Same author

Author Correction: Sleep deprivation diminishes attentional control effectiveness and impairs flexible adaptation to changing conditions.

Scientific reports·2023
Same author

Temporary amnesia from sleep loss: A framework for understanding consequences of sleep deprivation.

Frontiers in neuroscience·2023
Same author

A simplified, amplicon-based method for whole genome sequencing of human respiratory syncytial viruses.

Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology·2023
Same author

Race/ethnicity, sleep duration, and mortality risk in the United States.

SSM - population health·2023
Same journal

The role of sleep in strengthening face learning and memory consolidation: A systematic review.

Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience·2026
Same journal

How the brain represents a romantic partner: Dissociable roles of the nucleus accumbens and anterior insula.

Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience·2026
Same journal

Predictive processing in time perception: Assessing prediction error minimization in the sub-second range.

Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience·2026
Same journal

When attention falters: Brain, breathing, and behavioral signals of lapses in interoceptive attention.

Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience·2026
Same journal

Fronto-Parietal EEG asymmetry interactions predict negative attention bias: A secondary data analysis.

Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience·2026
Same journal

Correction: The neural basis of cost-benefit trade-offs in effort investment: a quantitative activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis.

Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience·2026
See all related articles

Skin conductance responses (SCRs) reflect decision-making competence in a go/no-go task, but do not drive performance. These physiological signals are sensitive to learning and task changes.

Area of Science:

  • Neuroscience
  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Psychophysiology

Background:

  • Somatic responses, such as skin conductance responses (SCRs), are often linked to decision-making processes.
  • The role of these physiological signals in task performance, particularly in learning paradigms, requires further elucidation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the relationship between SCRs and performance in a go/no-go (GNG) task.
  • To determine if SCRs are a cause or a consequence of competent decision-making.

Main Methods:

  • Participants performed a GNG task with feedback, and SCRs were measured post-decision and pre-feedback.
  • Task contingencies were manipulated (reversal) and pretraining was employed to assess SCRs' adaptability.

Main Results:

Related Experiment Videos

  • SCR patterns differentiated between correct and incorrect trials over time, similar to somatic markers in other tasks.
  • Somatic responses were disrupted by contingency reversals and facilitated by pretraining.
  • SCRs appeared to be a product of decision-making, not a contributor to performance.

Conclusions:

  • Differential SCRs to choices are a robust phenomenon but may not directly contribute to task performance.
  • Researchers should exercise caution when inferring a causal role for SCRs in performance.