Amanote Research
Register
Sign In
Figure 4: The Amplitudes (A) and Latency (B) of N2 and P3 Components in Response to the Go and No-Go Trials Across Groups.
doi 10.7717/peerj.6523/fig-4
Full Text
Open PDF
Abstract
Available in
full text
Date
Unknown
Authors
Unknown
Publisher
PeerJ
Related search
Automatic and Controlled Response Inhibition: Associative Learning in the Go/No-Go and Stop-Signal Paradigms.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Medicine
Developmental Neuroscience
Psychology
Experimental
Cognitive Psychology
Response Inhibition in the Parametric Go/No-Go Task in Psychopathic Offenders
Psychiatry Research
Psychiatry
Mental Health
Biological Psychiatry
Stimulus Nonequivalences in Go/No-Go Avoidance Discriminations: Sensory, Drive, and Response Factors
Animal Learning & Behavior
Figure 6: Response Latency in Advantageous Choices (A) and Disadvantageous Choices (B) Across the Inverse Task.
The Overlap of the Error-Related Negativity on the NO-GO Potential in a Visual GO/NO-GO Task
Japanese Journal of Physiological Psychology and Psychophysiology
Reward Sensitivity and Electrodermal Responses to Actions and Outcomes in a Go/No-Go Task
PLoS ONE
Multidisciplinary
Editorial: To Go, or Not to Go? What Are Business Attitudes to the Philosophy of No-Go Policies and Protected Areas?
Parks
Landscape Conservation
Nature
Existence and Control of Go/No-Go Decision Transition Threshold in the Striatum
PLoS Computational Biology
Molecular Neuroscience
Evolution
Ecology
Genetics
Behavior
Molecular Biology
Systematics
Simulation
Cellular
Computational Theory
Mathematics
Modeling
Response Inhibition and Error Monitoring During a Visual Go/No-Go Task in Inuit Children Exposed to Lead, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, and Methylmercury
Environmental Health Perspectives
Mutagenesis
Public Health
Environmental
Health
Toxicology
Occupational Health
