Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 31, 2026
Online Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Protocol for Measuring Cortical Physiology Associated with Response Inhibition
Published on: February 8, 2018
Conflict and inhibition in the cued-Go/NoGo task
William M Randall1, Janette L Smith
1School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Australia.
Objective:
Current debate centres on the inhibitory and conflict interpretations of the N2 and P3 components of the event-related potential (ERP). We examined behavioural responses and ERPs in a cued-Go/NoGo task.
Methods:
Participants were required to inhibit a planned response (NoGo target after Go cue), change a planned response to a different one (Invalid cueing), and activate an unexpected response (Go target after NoGo cue).
Results:
Responses were slower when participants had to change a planned response, and execute an unplanned response. N2 was more negative whenever the presented target required a different response to what was expected based on the cue. In contrast, P3 was increased when participants had to change or inhibit a planned response, but not when executing a response where none was planned.
Conclusions:
N2 results lend support to the conflict account, while P3 reflects cancellation of a planned response.
Significance:
This paper provides the first test of conflict involving activation of an unplanned response in a cued-Go/NoGo task.
Related Concept Videos
00:46Feedback Inhibition
01:14Frustration and Conflict: Avoidance-Avoidance, Double-Approach Avoidance
01:20Frustration and Conflict: Approach-Approach, Approach-Avoidance
One common type of conflict is the Approach–Approach Conflict. In this case, a person faces two desirable options,...
01:15Causes of Social Behavior II: Cognitive Processes