It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Reward and cognitive control play crucial roles in shaping goal-directed behavior. Yet, the behavioral and neural underpinnings of interactive effects of both processes in driving our actions towards a particular goal have remained rather unclear. Given the importance of inhibitory control, we investigated the effect of reward prospect on the modulatory influence of automatic versus controlled processes during response inhibition. For this, a performance-contingent monetary reward for both correct response selection and response inhibition was added to a Simon NoGo task, which manipulates the relationship of automatic and controlled processes in Go and NoGo trials. A neurophysiological approach was used by combining EEG temporal signal decomposition and source localization methods. Compared to a non-rewarded control group, rewarded participants showed faster response execution, as well as overall lower response selection and inhibition accuracy (shifted speed-accuracy tradeoff). Interestingly, the reward group displayed a larger interference of the interactive effects of automatic versus controlled processes during response inhibition (i.e., a larger Simon NoGo effect), but not during response selection. The reward-specific behavioral effect was mirrored by the P3 amplitude, underlining the importance of stimulus–response association processes in explaining variability in response inhibition performance. The selective reward-induced neurophysiological modulation was associated with lower activation differences in relevant structures spanning the inferior frontal and parietal cortex, as well as higher activation differences in the somatosensory cortex. Taken together, this study highlights relevant neuroanatomical structures underlying selective reward effects on response inhibition and extends previous reports on the possible detrimental effect of reward-triggered performance trade-offs on cognitive control processes.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 TU Dresden, Cognitive Neurophysiology, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Dresden, Germany (GRID:grid.4488.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2111 7257); TU Dresden, Faculty of Medicine, University Neuropsychology Center, Dresden, Germany (GRID:grid.4488.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2111 7257)
2 TU Dresden, Cognitive Neurophysiology, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Dresden, Germany (GRID:grid.4488.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2111 7257); TU Dresden, Faculty of Medicine, University Neuropsychology Center, Dresden, Germany (GRID:grid.4488.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2111 7257); TU Dresden, Biopsychology, Faculty of Psychology, School of Science, Dresden, Germany (GRID:grid.4488.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2111 7257)