Abstract
Conflict-control is a core function of cognitive control. Although numerous studies have considered cognitive control to be domain-general, the shared and distinct brain responses to different types of incongruence or conflict remain unclear. Using a hybrid flanker task, the present study explored the temporal dynamics of brain activation to three types of incongruence: flanker interference, rule-based response switch (rule-switch), and action-based response switch (response-alternation). The results showed that: (1) all three types of incongruence evoked larger N2 amplitudes than the congruent condition in the frontal region, with the N2 amplitudes and topographical distribution of the N2 effect differing between the different types of incongruence; and (2) in the P300 time window, the flanker interference condition yielded the most delayed P300 latency, whereas the rule-switch and response-alternation conditions yielded smaller P300 amplitudes with a longer interval from P300 peak to a keypress. These findings suggest that different types of incongruence are first monitored similarly by the cognitive control system and then resolved differently.
Highlights
A hallmark of human goal-pursuit is the ability to stay focused on task-goals in the presence of incongruence or conflict information (Botvinick et al, 2001, 2004)
Ongoing research efforts are focused on the construction of a new conceptualization of medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) to provide a comprehensive account of its functions including conflict monitoring and cognitive control, value valuation, reward prediction, reinforcement learning, and emotional regulation (Silvetti et al, 2014, 2018)
The event-related potential (ERP) evoked by distinct types of incongruence processes in a hybrid flanker task were compared
Summary
A hallmark of human goal-pursuit is the ability to stay focused on task-goals in the presence of incongruence or conflict information (Botvinick et al, 2001, 2004). Resolving these conflict situations requires one to detect the conflicts and to make rapid decisions regarding how to react according to the current goals (Kerns et al, 2004; Larson et al, 2012; Dignath et al, 2015; Rey-Mermet et al, 2019). Ongoing research efforts are focused on the construction of a new conceptualization of mPFC to provide a comprehensive account of its functions including conflict monitoring and cognitive control, value valuation, reward prediction, reinforcement learning, and emotional regulation (Silvetti et al, 2014, 2018)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
