title: Conflict and inhibition in the cued-Go/NoGo task.
abstract: 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.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This paper provides the first test of conflict involving activation of an unplanned response in a cued-Go/NoGo task.
authors.affiliation: School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Australia.
authors.forename: William M
authors.initials: WM
authors.lastname: Randall
authors.forename: Janette L
authors.initials: JL
authors.lastname: Smith
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D003220:Conflict, Psychological; D003463:Cues; D004569:Electroencephalography; D005071:Evoked Potentials / Q000502:physiology; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007266:Inhibition, Psychological; D008297:Male; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology; D055815:Young Adult