This involves rank ordering reaction times (RTs) on go trials.
The latency to dig was recorded for each trial and a difference score calculated, that is, dig latency on rewarded (go) trials minus dig latency on nonrewarded (no-go) trials.
Whereas both groups showed similar response speed and accuracy on go trials, older musicians showed fewer no-go errors.
Failure to execute movement on go trials with the affected left hand was associated with activations in precuneus and ventrolateral frontal gyrus.
This NoGo topography changed to a more parietal maximum, similar to that on Go trials, when referenced to a pre-cue baseline.
Although no significant between-group differences in task performance accuracy were observed, patients showed significantly longer response times on Go trials.
Finally, if striatum activation reflects response build-up speed, it should be proportional to response time on Go trials.
These results suggest that participants could reliably tell, based on an internal monitoring system, the difference between correct responses on Go trials and response errors on Nogo trials.
Response times on Go trials in which stop-signals could occur (829 ms, 821 837 ms; mean, 95% C.I). were significantly higher than response times on baseline Go trials (paired t-test, t(23) = 9.13, P<0.001).
Second, response times on StopFailure trials were faster than on Go trials in which stop-signals could occur (Fig. 2D; paired t-test, t(23) = 7.43, P<0.001).
Our paradigm elicited contrasting intentions: action on go trials or motor inhibition on no-go trials.
