Citation

Liu P, Wang X, Cao G, Li J, Zhang J, Cao R. Brain Behav. 2018; 8(10): e01112.

Affiliation

School of Public Management, Northwest University, Xi'an, China.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1002/brb3.1112

PMID

30176195

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to investigate whether processing a prepared response toward a dangerous object in a previous trial influences subsequent trial processing.

METHODS: The design manipulated the Go/NoGo factor of the current trial, the target dangerousness of the previous trial and that of the current trial.

RESULTS: In current Go trials, the behavioral results revealed a classical motor interference effect in trials that were preceded by a safe trial (a longer reaction time (RT) and a larger error rate for the previous safe and current dangerous (sD) condition than for the previous safe and current safe (sS) condition). However, the motor interference effect diminished in trials that were preceded by a dangerous trial (insignificant differences in the mean RTs and error rates between the previous dangerous and current dangerous (dD) condition and the previous dangerous and current safe (dS) condition). The event-related potential (ERP) results identified more positive P2 and parietal P3 amplitudes (indicating attentional resource allocation) for the dD condition than for the dS condition. However, the P2 and parietal P3 amplitudes of the sD condition did not significantly differ from those of the sS condition.

DISCUSSIONS: These results support the hypothesis that the avoidance motivation elicited by a dangerous target in a previous trial may indicate a dangerous situation, which leads to recruitment of more attentional resources allocated to the subsequent dangerous trial. Therefore, RTs are improved and errors are reduced in the consecutive dangerous condition, subsequently decreasing the motor interference effect in trials preceded by a dangerous trial compared with trials preceded by a safe trial. However, analysis of current NoGo trials revealed that none of the main effects or interactions reached significance in both the behavioral and ERP results, indicating that the hypothesis holds true only if the prepared response needs to be executed.

© 2018 The Authors. Brain and Behavior published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Language: en

Keywords

avoidance motivation; dangerous objects; motor interference effect; motor priming paradigm; sequential trial effect