These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
496 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28258436)
21. Stimulus-to-matching-stimulus interval influences N1, P2, and P3b in an equiprobable Go/NoGo task. Steiner GZ; Barry RJ; Gonsalvez CJ Int J Psychophysiol; 2014 Oct; 94(1):59-68. PubMed ID: 25034341 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Preferred EEG brain states at stimulus onset in a fixed interstimulus interval equiprobable auditory Go/NoGo task: a definitive study. Barry RJ; De Blasio FM; De Pascalis V; Karamacoska D Int J Psychophysiol; 2014 Oct; 94(1):42-58. PubMed ID: 25043955 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. The development of stop-signal and Go/Nogo response inhibition in children aged 7-12 years: performance and event-related potential indices. Johnstone SJ; Dimoska A; Smith JL; Barry RJ; Pleffer CB; Chiswick D; Clarke AR Int J Psychophysiol; 2007 Jan; 63(1):25-38. PubMed ID: 16919346 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The effect of age on N2 and P3 components: A meta-analysis of Go/Nogo tasks. Cheng CH; Tsai HY; Cheng HN Brain Cogn; 2019 Oct; 135():103574. PubMed ID: 31200173 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Sequence effects support the conflict theory of N2 and P3 in the Go/NoGo task. Smith JL; Smith EA; Provost AL; Heathcote A Int J Psychophysiol; 2010 Mar; 75(3):217-26. PubMed ID: 19951723 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. [Event-related potentials to response production and inhibition in go/nogo task. I. Topographical characteristics to different visual stimulus sequences]. Kaga Y; Iwadare Y; Noguchi S; Tando T; Aihara M No To Hattatsu; 2008 Jan; 40(1):20-5. PubMed ID: 18210859 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. When 'go' and 'nogo' are equally frequent: ERP components and cortical tomography. Lavric A; Pizzagalli DA; Forstmeier S Eur J Neurosci; 2004 Nov; 20(9):2483-8. PubMed ID: 15525290 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. The importance of age in the search for ERP biomarkers of aMCI. Cid-Fernández S; Lindín M; Díaz F Biol Psychol; 2019 Mar; 142():108-115. PubMed ID: 30721717 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A processing schema for children in the auditory equiprobable Go/NoGo task: ERP components and behaviour. Barry RJ; De Blasio FM; Fogarty JS Int J Psychophysiol; 2018 Jan; 123():74-79. PubMed ID: 29122654 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Varying task difficulty in the Go/Nogo task: the effects of inhibitory control, arousal, and perceived effort on ERP components. Benikos N; Johnstone SJ; Roodenrys SJ Int J Psychophysiol; 2013 Mar; 87(3):262-72. PubMed ID: 22902315 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. EEG phase states at stimulus onset in a variable-ISI Go/NoGo task: Effects on ERP components. Barry RJ; Fogarty JS; De Blasio FM; Karamacoska D Biol Psychol; 2018 Apr; 134():89-102. PubMed ID: 29462656 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Auditory-induced emotion modulates processes of response inhibition: an event-related potential study. Yu F; Yuan J; Luo YJ Neuroreport; 2009 Jan; 20(1):25-30. PubMed ID: 18978645 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Prestimulus EEG amplitude determinants of ERP responses in a habituation paradigm. De Blasio FM; Barry RJ; Steiner GZ Int J Psychophysiol; 2013 Sep; 89(3):444-50. PubMed ID: 23732790 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Neurocognitive deficits in male alcoholics: an ERP/sLORETA analysis of the N2 component in an equal probability Go/NoGo task. Pandey AK; Kamarajan C; Tang Y; Chorlian DB; Roopesh BN; Manz N; Stimus A; Rangaswamy M; Porjesz B Biol Psychol; 2012 Jan; 89(1):170-82. PubMed ID: 22024409 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Effects of age on cognitive control during semantic categorization. Mudar RA; Chiang HS; Maguire MJ; Spence JS; Eroh J; Kraut MA; Hart J Behav Brain Res; 2015; 287():285-93. PubMed ID: 25823764 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Auditory equiprobable NoGo P3: A single-trial latency-adjusted ERP analysis. Fogarty JS; Barry RJ; Steiner-Lim GZ Int J Psychophysiol; 2022 Dec; 182():90-104. PubMed ID: 36216120 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Response competition and response inhibition during different choice-discrimination tasks: evidence from ERP measured inside MRI scanner. Gonzalez-Rosa JJ; Inuggi A; Blasi V; Cursi M; Annovazzi P; Comi G; Falini A; Leocani L Int J Psychophysiol; 2013 Jul; 89(1):37-47. PubMed ID: 23664841 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. ERP Go/NoGo condition effects are better detected with separate PCAs. Barry RJ; De Blasio FM; Fogarty JS; Karamacoska D Int J Psychophysiol; 2016 Aug; 106():50-64. PubMed ID: 27289050 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Performance and ERP components in the equiprobable go/no-go task: Inhibition in children. Barry RJ; De Blasio FM Psychophysiology; 2015 Sep; 52(9):1228-37. PubMed ID: 25959726 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Neural mechanisms underlying conflict monitoring over risky decision alternatives: evidence from ERP in a Go/Nogo task. Wang S; Hui N; Zhou X; He K; Yu Y; Shuai J J Integr Neurosci; 2014 Sep; 13(3):497-508. PubMed ID: 25164361 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]