Abstract
Objective: Internally guided actions are defined as being purposeful, self-generated and offering choices between alternatives. Intentional actions are essential to reach individual goals. In previous empirical studies, internally guided actions were predominantly related to functional responses in frontal and parietal areas. The aim of the present study was to distinguish event-related potentials and oscillatory responses of intentional actions and externally guided actions. In addition, we compared neurobiological findings of the decision which action to perform with those referring to the decision whether or not to perform an action.Methods: Twenty-eight subjects participated in adapted go/nogo paradigms, including a voluntary selection condition allowing participants to (1) freely decide whether to press the response button or (2) to decide whether they wanted to press the response button with the right index finger or the left index finger.Results: The reaction times were increased when participants freely decided whether and how they wanted to respond compared to the go condition. Intentional processes were associated with a fronto-centrally located N2 and P3 potential. N2 and P3 amplitudes were increased during intentional actions compared to instructed responses (go). In addition, increased activity in the alpha-, beta- and gamma-frequency range was shown during voluntary behavior rather than during externally guided responses.Conclusion: These results may indicate that an additional cognitive process is needed for intentional actions compared to instructed behavior. However, the neural responses were comparatively independent of the kind of decision that was made (1) decision which action to perform; (2) decision whether or not to perform an action).Significance: The study demonstrates the importance of fronto-central alpha-, beta-, and gamma oscillations for voluntary behavior.
Highlights
Executive functions can be seen as a set of cognitive abilities, e.g., planning, adaptive responses to changing environmental requirements, flexible responses, working memory, inhibition of responses, and selection between response alternatives
Further analyses revealed that the N2 was significantly less pronounced in the go task compared to the voluntary selection condition (p = 0.015) as well as the nogo (p = 0.032)
Attention is required in intentional actions and they offer a choice between alternatives (Jahanshahi, 1998)
Summary
Executive functions can be seen as a set of cognitive abilities, e.g., planning, adaptive responses to changing environmental requirements, flexible responses, working memory, inhibition of responses, and selection between response alternatives. Dysfunctions in the executive system impair the capability to analyze, plan, prioritize, schedule, initiate and complete an activity in a timely manner (Hosenbocus and Chahal, 2012). The psychopathology of many psychiatric diseases seems to be influenced by impairments of the executive system and are considerably associated with functional outcomes, disability and specific problem behaviors (Royall et al, 2002). Executive dysfunction has been linked to divers psychiatric conditions (Robinson et al, 2009), especially to attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and to autism spectrum disorder (e.g., Happé et al, 2006; Hosenbocus and Chahal, 2012). Intentional processes do not rely on obvious external stimuli but are self-generated, e.g., self-initiated movement and internally generated action plans. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have demonstrated an association of voluntary selection processes and frontocentral areas (Turken and Swick, 1999; Ridderinkhof et al, 2004; Rushworth et al, 2007), including medial frontal areas, the supplementary motor area (SMA), the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (Frith et al, 1991; Hyder et al, 1997; Jueptner et al, 1997; Lau et al, 2004b; Walton et al, 2004; Forstmann et al, 2006; Karch et al, 2009), the superior parietal lobule and the intraparietal sulcus (Forstmann et al, 2006; Karch et al, 2009)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
