When targets retrieved episodes containing the same response hand, the LRP onset occurred earlier, whereas when targets retrieved episodes containing the other response hand, the LRP onset was delayed.
Data showed that both participants significantly increased their target response (hand swing) to activate the control system to produce environmental stimulation during the B (intervention) phases.
Although response hand manipulations tend to elicit weaker laterality effects than those involving visual field of presentation, the implementation of different lateralized response strategies remains relatively unexplored.
A combined ERP and eletromyographic (EMG) investigation revealed that adolescents have attenuated contingent negative variation (CNV) activity during response preparation followed by larger P3b amplitude and EMG activity in the incorrect response hand during response execution.
Importantly, because different stimulus types were associated with each hand, any informative cue implicitly indicated both a stimulus type and response hand, allowing participants to represent the task as two distinct subtasks.
Conversely young adults engaged increased response preparation followed by attenuated P3b activity and early EMG activity in the correct response hand during response execution which indicates a proactive control strategy.
As our aim was to understand the attentional processes involved in target detection, using bimanual responses reduced the likelihood of any stimulus-response compatibility effects (e.g., congruency between targets and response hand).
The Response Hand × Visual Field interaction approached significance, F 2, 28) = 2.678, p = .0862.0862
The mapping of finger onto left or right hand response was dependent on response hand.
An LRP begins when the response hand is chosen and the motor cortex prepares the hand movement.
In consequence, the unbalanced response hand doesn't seem to account for the slight differences in lateralization between SO and VS.
