Neuroscience 180 (2011) 122–128
RESPONSE PREPARATION AND COGNITIVE CONTROL OF HIGHLY
INTELLIGENT CHILDREN: A GO-NOGO EVENT-RELATED POTENTIAL
STUDY
T. LIU,a* T. XIAO,b J. SHIa AND D. ZHAOc
a
Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chi-
nese Academy of Sciences, Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing
100101, China
b
Natural Language Processing Laboratory, Northeastern University,
Liaoning, China
c
Beijing No.8 Middle School, Beijing, China
Abstract—A cued Go-Nogo task was employed to explore the
neural correlation among response preparation, cognitive
control and intelligence in two groups of early adolescents
with different intellectual levels using event-related potential
(ERP) technique. Behavioral results indicated that the gifted
children had better cognitive control performances with
higher correct hit rate and lower commission error rate than
the average children. Electrophysiological results further
showed that the gifted children elicited efficient cue-P2 re-
sponse for automatic cue detection and stronger cue-P3 ac-
tivation for cue evaluation. Moreover, gifted children induced
faster N2 and Nogo-P3 responses for conflict monitoring and
inhibition processing and stronger P3 activation for atten-
tional control. The current results supported the neural effi-
ciency hypothesis of intelligence and further shed light on
the close relationship among response preparation, cogni-
tive control and human intelligence. © 2011 IBRO. Published
by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Key words: response preparation, cognitive control, intelli-
gence, event-related potentials.
Response preparation and cognitive control abilities are
regarded as the important and advanced abilities to regu-
late our behaviors and thoughts (Bekker et al., 2004), and
intelligence test scores can predict an individual’s perfor-
mance in accomplishing these complex tasks (Duncan,
2003). Intellectually gifted individuals exhibit faster and
better performances in executive tests (Arffa, 2007; Calero
et al., 2007) and inhibition tasks (Johnson et al., 2003) than
their average peers. However, to date, the neural correla-
tion among response preparation, cognitive control and
human intelligence has not been investigated.
Continuous Performance Task-AX (CPT-AX) paradigm
contains more conflict and is appropriate to explore the
correlation between response preparation and cognitive
control (Jonkman, 2006), where participants are instructed
to respond to the letter X (target stimuli) only if only it
follows the letter A (cue signal) directly (Go condition) while
*Corresponding author. Tel: ⫹86-10-64854533; fax: ⫹86-10-64872070.
E-mail address: liutr@psych.ac.cn (T. Liu).
Abbreviations: ERP, event-related potential; SES, socioeconomic sta-
tus.
0306-4522/11 $ - see front matter © 2011 IBRO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.02.022
122
withholding their responses to the letters which directly
follow the cue stimuli but are not the target stimuli (Nogo
condition) (Bekker et al., 2005). Furthermore, event-re-
lated potentials (ERPs) can be directly used to measure
these cue-related motor preparation processing and have
been widely applied to explore the neural correlates be-
tween response preparation and cognitive control pro-
cesses in recent years, which can record electrophysiolog-
ical signal with high time resolution and uncover the pre-
cise time course of neural processes even without actual
behavioral responses (Bekker et al., 2004, 2005; Bokura et
al., 2001; Bruin and Wijers, 2002; Bruin et al., 2001;
Donkers and van Boxtel, 2004; Freitas et al., 2007; Jonk-
man, 2006; Smith et al., 2008).
Electrophysiological studies based on CPT-AX para-
digm have indicated that cue-related response preparation
processes induce two ERP components: an early positivity
(100 –300 ms range) with the neural generation across
fronto-central area (cue-P2) and a late positivity (200 – 400
ms time window) over centro-parietal area, and cue-P2 is
regarded as reflecting automatic detection to the cue sig-
nal, while, cue-P3 relates to Go-expectancy and cue eval-
uation processing (Banaschewski et al., 2003; Bekker et
al., 2004; Jonkman, 2006). According to the conflict control
theory, Go-Nogo cognitive control processes further con-
sist of conflict monitoring and attentional control processes
(Botvinick et al., 2004), and the conflict arises in the Nogo
condition because motor response expectancy is violated
(Bekker et al., 2004). Nogo-N2 elicited during 200 –300 ms
after stimulus onset reflects the monitoring process to the
conflict situation (Bruin et al., 2001; Donkers and van
Boxtel, 2004; Falkenstein, 2006), and the source location
analysis further proves that Nogo-N2 is generated in an-
terior cingulate cortex (ACC) and prefrontal lobe (Bekker et
al., 2005; van Veen and Carter, 2002), which is consistent
with that ACC activation relates to conflict detection in
neuroimaging studies (Botvinick et al., 2004). Moreover,
P3 induced during 300 – 600 ms relates to attentional con-
trol processes, and Nogo-P3 with fronto-central area dis-
tribution correlates with inhibition control, while, Go-P3
with centro-parietal area distribution reflects executive
control (Bokura et al., 2001; Bruin and Wijers, 2002).
A recent study explored the neural correlation between
intelligence and inhibition control by using a classical Go-
Nogo task and reported that highly intelligent children had
faster P3 response for inhibition processing than average
children (Duan et al., 2009), and it did not report any
differences in N2 activation during conflict monitoring pro-
cess. However, Duan et al.’s study contained several lim-
 T. Liu et al. / Neuroscience 180 (2011) 122–128 123

itations: Firstly, they adopted a simple Go-Nogo paradigm Table 1. Children’s IQ scores and SES characteristics
which contained less conflict situation, and both groups of
children could complete the task well without devoting Gifted Average t-test/
much neural effort to detect the conflict situation. Sec- group group Chi-square
(n⫽20) (n⫽21) test
ondly, their study did not investigate how children’s re-
sponse preparation affected their cognitive control pro- IQ
cesses, so it was also uncertain whether gifted children’s IQ scores 43.2⫾1.7 34.5⫾1.9 P⬍0.001
better inhibition performances were partially attributed to Score range 41–46 30–40
their efficient response preparation processes. Standardized IQ range 120–135 100–115
In order to solve these limitations, current study was SES
aimed at exploring the relationship between response Maternal education
ⱕHigh school 5 4 P⬎0.05
preparation and the subsequent cognitive control pro-
Bachelor’s degree 11 12
cesses in two groups of children with different intellectual Master’s/doctorate 4 5
levels with a revised CPT-ABX experimental task which degree
was more complex and would induce more conflict situa- Parental wealth
tion based on previous studies (Bekker et al., 2004). Two Poor 0 0 P⬎0.05
hypotheses were further proposed: firstly, gifted group Lower than medium 4 5
would have better cognitive control performances due to Medium 14 12
their faster and stronger neural responses of N2 and P3 in Rich 2 4
both conflict monitoring and attentional control processes. IQ difference analysis used t-test, and SES analysis used Chi-
Secondly, gifted children would evoke more efficient square test. Numbers in the SES characteristics were the numbers
cue-P2 and cue-P3 responses for the cue-related re- of participants.
sponse preparation processes than their average peers.
Stimuli and procedure

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Participants
Two groups of early adolescents participated in the current study:
a group of intellectually gifted children [n⫽20, 11 boys and nine
girls; ages 12.7–13.2 years old (mean age: 12.8 years old); all
right handed] were randomly recruited from the experimental
school that is specifically founded to offer accelerated education
for gifted children nationwide, and the curriculum of the gifted
education system was mainly focused on the scientific domains
(such as, mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology). The ex-
perimental school enrolls about 30 intellectually gifted children
from about 2000 candidates nationwide based on multiple criteria
and methods each year. Several of the main steps for the enroll-
ment examination and identification are an application, a primary
screening test (classical intelligence tests, such as the Wechsler
Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence), a retest (focusing on
cognitive abilities [attention, memory, reasoning abilities], creativ-
ity, learning ability, special talents, personality traits [motivation]),
further confirmation (children’s physical conditions) and behav-
ioral observation through equal educational environment (children
who had excellent performances in the above steps within the top
fifth quantile passed this step).
A group of intellectually average children [n⫽21, 11 boys and
10 girls; age 12.6 –13.4 years old (mean age: 12.9 years old); all
right handed] was chosen with the similar gender ratio, ages and
parental socioeconomic status (SES) as the gifted group. Cattell’s
Culture Fair Test (Child Edition, 46 items, one point/item, scale
range 0 – 46) was used to test children’s general fluid intelligence
scores, and the gifted group achieved significantly higher intelli-
gence scores than the average group (t⫽7.52, P⬍0.001). SES
questionnaire included the variables of maternal education and
parental wealth, and the parental wealth variable was based on
parents’ average income per month from the child’s birth. Statis-
tical analysis showed that there was no significant difference
between the two groups in the SES, and the results of psycho-
metric testing of IQ and SES are presented in Table 1. All of the
children had normal or corrected-to-normal visual acuity, and
none of them had neurological or psychiatric problems. Informed
consents were obtained from both their parents and teachers.
The stimuli were six capital-written Western characters: letter A,
letter B, letter F, letter J, letter T and letter X in black Time New
Roman Regular Font, and they were presented in the center of
light gray screen with the visual angle of 2.9° vertically and 2.7°
horizontally.
Participants completed 18 trials for practice (3 A, 3 B, 6 X, 2
F, 2 T, 2 J), and the formal experiment consisted of 520 stimulus
presentations (100 A, 100 B, 200 X, 40 F, 40 T, 40 J) with half the
number of letter A and half the number of letter B directly followed
by the letter X, which indicated that 50% of the letter X trials (100
trials) need Go processing and the other 50% of the X trials (100
trials) required Nogo processing. All the stimuli were displayed
randomly. Participants were instructed to press the left button
when the letter X directly followed the letter A and press the right
button when the letter X directly followed the letter B as correctly
and as quickly as possible, and they were also asked not to
respond to the non-X letters that followed behind the cues. Par-
ticipants were informed that some of the letter A and letter B
accompanied with the target letter X following behind while some
did not, and this instruction might induce children’s response
preparation tendency.
Participants were seated on a comfortable chair with a
straight visual angle to the center of computer monitor. Each
stimulus was presented for 600 ms followed by a blank screen for
400 – 600 ms. The usages of left and right hands were balanced
within participants. There were four blocks in the formal experi-
ment with 130 stimulus presentations per block, and participants
were allowed to have a 2–3 min break after each block.
ERP recording and data analysis
Electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded (bandpass filtering
0.05–100 Hz, sampling rate 1000 Hz, Synamp2 amplifiers) by
using NeuroScan recording system with Ag/AgCl electrodes
placed on F3-Fz-F4, FC3-FCz-FC4, C3-Cz-C4, CP3-CPz-CP4,
P3-Pz-P4 and PO3-POz-PO4 according to the 10 –20 interna-
tional system. The reference electrode was attached to the nose
reference, and the ground electrode was attached to the forehead.
Horizontal electrooculogram (HEOG) was recorded with a pair of
electrodes placed 10 mm from the outer canthi of two eyes, and
vertical electrooculogram (VEOG) was recorded with a pair of
124 T. Liu et al. / Neuroscience 180 (2011) 122–128
Table 2. Children’s correct hit, commissions and reaction time of
correct hit (ms) in the continuous performance task
Groups Correct hit Commission error Reaction
rate rate time
Gifted group 0.93 (0.06) 0.03 (0.03) 424 (49.4)
Average group 0.88 (0.07) 0.05 (0.05) 430 (50)
electrodes placed above and below the left eye. Electrode imped-
ances were kept below 5 ⍀. All the ERP segments were screened
visually, and those with eye movement or body movement arti-
facts were removed. Also, the first two trials of each block were
removed from further analysis. Each epoch had an 800 ms dura-
tion with 100 ms before the stimulus onset for baseline correction.
ERPs were Zero Phase Shift filtered offline (bandpass: 0.1–30 Hz,
slope: 24 dB/oct). Epochs with amplitude changes exceeding ⫾70
␮V on any channel were rejected. Only the trials with correct
responses were included for further averaging.
When the cue stimulus (letter A or B) was directly followed by
the target stimulus (letter X), the experimental condition was
named as the Go condition. If the cue was not directly followed by
the target stimulus but by the non-X letters, the condition was
called as the Nogo condition. Participants’ reaction to the cue
(letter A and B) was regarded as the cue condition, and the non-A
or B or X letters induced the non-cue condition. After the ERP
average, there were average of 172 trials in the cue condition and
107 trials in the non-cue condition in gifted group, and the remain-
ing numbers were 181 trials vs. 105 trials in the average group.
The gifted group remained average of 81 trials in the Go condition
and 85 trials in the Nogo condition, and the remaining numbers of
average group were average of 79 trials vs. 83 trials, respectively.
Fig. 1. Children’s ERP activation of cue-P2 and cue-P3 during response preparation processes in the cue condition and the non-condition.
RESULTS
Behavioral results
Behavioral data were analyzed based on the Signal De-
tection Theory (Green and Swets, 1966; Wickens, 2002),
and the numbers of correct hit, commission error rate and
reaction time (ms) of correct hit were analyzed according
to the following formulas and presented in Table 2.
Correct hit rate⫽1⫺(Omissions⫹Wrong hit) ⁄ 100 (1)
Commssion error rate⫽Commisson ⁄ 200 (2)
Independent sample t-test was used to compare two groups’
response differences in the correct hit rate, commission error
rate and reaction time. The statistical results showed that the
gifted group exhibited significantly higher correct hit rate
(t⫽2.76, P⬍0.01) and lower commission error rate (t⫽⫺2.19,
P⬍0.05) than the average group, and there was no signifi-
cant difference in the reaction time between these two
groups.
ERP results of response preparation
Fig. 1 presented two groups’ neural activation of cue-P2
and cue-P3 during response preparation processes, and
the mean peak amplitudes and latencies of cue-P2 (100 –
250 ms after stimulus onset, at the electrodes of F3-Fz-F4,
FC3-FCz-FC4, C3-Cz-C4) are presented in Table 3 and
 T. Liu et al. / Neuroscience 180 (2011) 122–128
Table 3. Children’s mean and standard deviation of peak amplitudes (␮V) and latencies (ms) of cue-P2 and cue-P3 during response preparation
processes in the cue condition and the non-cue condition
Groups Preparation condition Cue-P2 latency
Gifted group Cue condition 195 (39.6)
Non-cue condition 203 (38.8)
Average group Cue condition 204 (40)
Non-cue condition 204 (39.8)
subjected to repeated measures ANOVAs with Intelligence
(two levels, gifted group and average group) as between-
subject factor, Cue condition (two levels, cue condition and
non-cue condition) and Electrode sites (three levels, frontal
area [F3-Fz-F4], fronto-central area [FC3-FCz-FC4], cen-
tral area [C3-Cz-C4]) as within-subject factors. The gifted
group had smaller cue-P2 amplitude than the average
group (F(1,39)⫽7.22, P⬍0.05), and the cue condition in-
duced larger cue-P2 amplitude than the non-cue condition
(F(1,39)⫽6.18, P⬍0.05). Cue condition and Electrode sites
had significant interaction effect on cue-P2 amplitude
(F(2,39)⫽7.01, P⬍0.05), and further simple effect contrast
analysis showed that the cue condition evoked larger cue-P2
amplitude in the frontal and fronto-central areas than the
non-cue condition.
The mean peak amplitudes and latencies of cue-P3
(250 – 450 ms, at the electrodes of F3-Fz-F4, FC3-FCz-
FC4, C3-Cz-C4, P3-Pz-P4) are presented in Table 3 and
subjected to repeated measures ANOVAs with Intelligence
(two levels, gifted group and average group) as between-
subject factor, Cue condition (two levels, cue condition and
non-cue condition) and Electrode sites (four levels, frontal
area [F3-Fz-F4], fronto-central area [FC3-FCz-FC4], cen-
tral area [C3-Cz-C4], parietal area [P3-Pz-P4]) as within-
subject factors. The cue condition induced larger and ear-
lier cue-P3 response than the non-cue condition (ampli-
tude: F(1,39)⫽18.7, P⬍0.001; latency: F(1,39)⫽5.9, P⬍
0.05), and the parietal area had larger and earlier cue-P3
activation than the other areas (amplitude: F(3,39)⫽23.71,
P⬍0.001; latency: F(3,39)⫽11.5, P⬍0.01). Intelligence
and Electrode sites had significant interaction effect on
cue-P3 amplitude (F(3,39)⫽10.1, P⬍0.01), and further
simple effect analysis showed that the gifted children had
larger cue-P3 amplitude than the average children in the
fronto-central, central and parietal areas but not in the
frontal area.
ERP results of Go-Nogo cognitive control processes
Fig. 2 showed two groups’ neural activation of N2 and P3
responses for cognitive control processes, and the mean
peak amplitudes and latencies of N2 (200 –350 ms, at the
electrodes of F3-Fz-F4, FC3-FCz-FC4, C3-Cz-C4) are
presented in Table 4 and subjected to repeated measures
ANOVAs with Intelligence (two levels, gifted group and
average group) as between-subject factor, Go/Nogo con-
dition (two levels, Go condition and Nogo condition) and
Electrode sites (three levels, frontal area [F3-Fz-F4],
fronto-central area [FC3-FCz-FC4], central area [C3-Cz-
C4]) as within-subject factors. The statistical results sho-
125
Cue-P2 amplitude Cue-P3 latency Cue-P3 amplitude
2.9 (0.5) 354.5 (12.4) 9 (1.5)
2.6 (0.9) 361 (15.7) 6.5 (2)
4 (1.7) 356 (18) 7.7 (1.1)
3.8 (1.3) 371 (12.6) 6.2 (1.8)
wed that the gifted children had significantly faster N2
responses than the average children (F(1,39)⫽5.8, P⬍
0.05), and the Nogo condition induced larger N2 amplitude
than the Go condition (F(1,39)⫽10.5, P⬍0.01). Go/Nogo
condition and Electrode sites had significant interaction
effect on N2 amplitude (F(2,39)⫽6.1, P⬍0.05), and further
simple effect analysis showed that the frontal and fronto-
central areas evoked larger N2 amplitude than the central
area in the Nogo condition.
The mean peak amplitudes and latencies of P3 (300 –
500 ms, at the electrodes of F3-Fz-F4, FC3-FCz-FC4,
C3-Cz-C4, P3-Pz-P4, PO3-POz-PO4) are presented in
Table 4 and subjected to repeated measures ANOVAs
with Intelligence (two levels, gifted group and average
group) as between-subject factor, Go/Nogo condition (two
levels, Go condition and Nogo condition) and Electrode
sites (five levels, frontal area [F3-Fz-F4], fronto-central
area [FC3-FCz-FC4], central area [C3-Cz-C4], parietal
area [P3-Pz-P4], parietal-occipital area [PO3-POz-PO4])
as within-subject factors. The Nogo condition induced sig-
nificantly later P3 response than the Go condition
(F(1,39)⫽16.4, P⬍0.005). Intelligence and Go/Nogo con-
dition had significant interaction effect on P3 latency
(F(1,39)⫽5.3, P⬍0.05), and further simple effect contrast
analysis showed that the gifted children had significantly
earlier P3 response in the Nogo condition than the average
children did. Furthermore, the gifted children elicited sig-
nificantly larger P3 amplitude than the average children
(F(1,39)⫽20.2, P⬍0.001), and the parietal area had larger
P3 amplitude than the other areas (F(4,39)⫽15.9, P⬍
0.005). Intelligence and Go/Nogo condition had significant
interaction effect on P3 amplitude (F(1,39)⫽14.5, P⬍
0.005), and further simple effect contrast analysis showed
that the average children induced smaller P3 amplitude in
the Nogo condition than that in the Go condition. Go/Nogo
condition and Electrode sites had significant interaction
effect on P3 amplitude (F(4,39)⫽15.7, P⬍0.005), and fur-
ther simple effect contrast analysis showed that the Nogo
condition induced larger P3 amplitude than the Go condition
in the frontal and fronto-central areas, while the Go condition
elicited larger P3 amplitude than the Nogo condition in the
central, parietal and parietal-occipital areas.
DISCUSSION
Current study was devoted to investigate the neural corre-
lation among response preparation, cognitive control and
human intelligence, and the behavioral results indicated
that gifted children could execute Go responses with in-
126 T. Liu et al. / Neuroscience 180 (2011) 122–128

Fig. 2. Children’s ERP activation of N2 and P3 during conflict monitoring and cognitive control processes in the Go condition and the Nogo condition.

creased accuracies and inhibit improper responses (Nogo al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2003). The electrophysiological
response) with less commission error rate than intellectu- results further demonstrated how response preparation
ally average children, which illustrated that gifted children affected cognitive control processes between two groups
had better cognitive control abilities (Arffa, 2007; Calero et of children.

Table 4. Children’s mean and standard deviation of peak amplitudes (␮V) and latencies (ms) of N2 and P3 during conflict monitoring and cognitive
control processes in the Go condition and the Nogo condition

Groups Experimental condition N2 latency N2 amplitude P3 latency P3 amplitude

Gifted group Go condition 217 (20.6) ⫺0.2 (0.02) 337 (18) 12 (2.8)
Nogo condition 244 (20.5) ⫺1.5 (0.05) 358.4 (16.5) 11.3 (2.8)
Average group Go condition 220 (21.6) 1 (0.04) 336 (17.6) 10.6 (2.6)
Nogo condition 254 (21.5) ⫺1.1 (0.04) 384 (18.6) 7.5 (2.1)
 T. Liu et al. / Neuroscience 180 (2011) 122–128 127

Response preparation 2006; Jonkman, 2006; Smith et al., 2008). Present study
achieved that N2 component was strongly elicited under
The current waveform morphology was similar with previous
the Nogo condition and mainly distributed across frontal
studies that reported cue-related fronto-central P2 and cen-
and fronto-central areas but not over central area, which
tro-parietal P3 could be significantly induced by the cue stim-
supported the previous source location analysis that re-
uli for the response preparation processes in the cue-related
garded Nogo-N2 was generated in ACC and dorsolateral
Go/Nogo paradigms (Banaschewski et al., 2003; Bekker et
frontal lobe (Falkenstein, 2006; Smith et al., 2008; van
al., 2004; Jonkman, 2006). Children’s cue-P2 and cue-P3
Veen and Carter, 2002) and related to conflict monitoring
responses under the cue condition and non-cue condition
processing (Botvinick et al., 2004). Moreover, it was ob-
were compared to analyze the differences in neural activation
served that gifted children induced faster N2 response
during cue-related response preparation processes. The re-
than their average peers, which suggested that they could
sults achieved that the cue condition elicited larger cue-P2
efficiently detect conflict situation with faster neural pro-
activation than the non-cue condition, which supported that
cessing speed, and gifted children’s better conflict moni-
cue-P2 activation reflected early cue-related automatic sen-
toring processing might rely on their mature frontal function
sory processing (Banaschewski et al., 2003). Interestingly,
in solving conflict and complex problems (Jonkman, 2006;
present study found that gifted children induced smaller
Segalowitz and Davies, 2004; Shaw et al., 2006). These
cue-P2 responses than their average peers, and this result
findings were different from Duan et al. (2009)’s study
was out of our expectation and might illustrate that gifted
which did not find any differences in neural activation
individuals could complete cue-related automatic sensory
between gifted children and average children during con-
processing by devoting less neural effort, which might be due
flict monitoring processing. One possible reason was that
to their efficient pre-attention processing (Liu et al., 2007). In
their experimental paradigm was too simple and only con-
addition, this finding was in line with previous studies which
tained two stimuli (digit one and nine), one for Go condition
reported that brighter individuals produced less cortical acti-
and the other for Nogo condition, and both groups of
vation (more neural efficiency) when accomplishing cognitive
children could complete the task successfully without de-
operations (Neubauer and Fink, 2003; Neubauer et al.,
voting much neural effort and resource to detect the con-
2004), so the current finding could also support the neural
flict situation. While, the current CPT-ABX paradigm com-
efficiency hypothesis of intelligence which emphasized that
prised more conflict (Bekker et al., 2004) and made aver-
gifted individuals had more efficient neural functions and
age children devote more neural effort to complete the
could use fewer neurons and specific neuronal circuits to
task, and further led to their slower neural response speed
complete cognitive tasks than intellectually average individu-
in conflict detection processing.
als (Neubauer and Fink, 2009).
During attentional control processing, current study
Furthermore, current study also observed that the cue
achieved that participants had larger and faster Go-P3
condition induced larger and faster cue-P3 response than the
response comparing with Nogo-P3, and Nogo-P3 was
non-cue condition, which confirmed that cue-P3 activation
strongly activated over frontal and fronto-central areas for
reflected cue evaluation and expectation to the occurrence of
motor inhibition, while Go-P3 reflected executive control
Go stimuli (Bekker et al., 2004), and it supported that cue-P3
and was mainly generated across central and parietal
activation was generated from parietal area (Banaschewski
areas (Bokura et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2008). Further-
et al., 2003; Bekker et al., 2004; Jonkman, 2006). Moreover,
more, gifted children induced faster P3 response in the
it was also achieved that gifted children induced larger
Nogo condition, which was consistent with Duan et al.’s
cue-P3 response over fronto-central and parietal areas, while
findings, and it was demonstrated that gifted children could
average children activated frontal area for cue-P3 activation,
withhold the improper responses with faster neural pro-
and this finding might indicate that gifted children saved some
cessing speed. Current study also observed that gifted
frontal resource for the following cognitive control processes
children elicited larger P3 activation and without significant
which strongly required frontal function (Bokura et al., 2001;
differences between their Go-P3 and Nogo-P3 responses,
Botvinick et al., 2004) and their efficient cue evaluation pro-
but average children induced smaller Nogo-P3 than Go-P3
cessing could make better neuropsychological preparation
activation. Previous studies have stated that frontal-pari-
for the subsequent neural processes (Freitas et al., 2007;
etal network closely related to cognitive control processes
Jonkman, 2006). Therefore, the different neural reaction pat-
(Brass et al., 2005; Bunge et al., 2002), and current results
terns between these two groups further demonstrated that
of P3 activation further demonstrated that gifted children
gifted children had more efficient neural function for cue-
might have developed more mature frontal-parietal neural
target response preparation processes (Liu et al., 2007; Neu-
network for both inhibition control and execution control
bauer and Fink, 2009; Segalowitz et al., 1992).
processes comparing with their average peers (Duncan,
2003; Gray et al., 2003; Neubauer and Fink, 2009). More-
Conflict monitoring and inhibition control
over, inhibition control was one of the most important
Consistent with previous CPT-AX studies, our present components of self-regulation abilities, and the current
study achieved similar waveform morphology of frontal N2 findings also provided the electrophysiological proof for
for conflict monitoring and P3 for inhibition control pro- gifted children’s better self-regulation abilities and strate-
cesses (Bekker et al., 2004; Bokura et al., 2001; Bruin et gies (Calero et al., 2007). Taken together the electro-
al., 2001; Donkers and van Boxtel, 2004; Falkenstein, physiological findings in both conflict monitoring and
128 T. Liu et al. / Neuroscience 180 (2011) 122–128
cognitive control processes, it further supported that
gifted children had more efficient and mature neural
function in accomplishing complex cognitive processes
(Jaušovec and Jaušovec, 2000; Shaw et al., 2006).
CONCLUSION
This study confirmed the significant correlations among
response preparation, cognitive control and intelligence in
early adolescents. The intellectually gifted group exhibited
better execution and inhibition control performances than
the average group. In response preparation processes
gifted children had efficient cue-related automatic sensory
processing (smaller cue-P2) and stronger neural activation
for cue evaluation processing (larger cue-P3), and during
cognitive control processes they could detect conflict situ-
ation by eliciting faster N2 response over frontal and cen-
tral areas and induce faster and stronger P3 activation for
attentional control processes than their average peers.
The current findings further supported the neural efficiency
hypothesis of intelligence and made valuable contribution
to the understanding of the developmental trajectory of
general intelligence and cognitive control.
Ackowledgments—This research was supported by Natural Sci-
ence Foundation for the Youth of China (Grant No. 31000468),
Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation and President Award Scientific
Research Foundation of Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Sci-
entific Research Foundation for the Youth of Institute of Psychol-
ogy, Chinese Academy of Sciences. We express our warmest
thanks to all of the children for their participation. The helpful
comments of the anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowl-
edged.
REFERENCES
Arffa S (2007) The relationship of intelligence to executive function and
non-executive function measures in a sample of average, above
average, and gifted youth. Clin Neuropsychol 22:969 –978.
Banaschewski T, Brandeis D, Heinrich H, Albrecht B, Brunner E,
Rothenberger A (2003) Association of ADHD and conduct disor-
der, brain electrical evidence for the existence of a distinct subtype.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry 44:356 –376.
Bekker EM, Kenemans JL, Verbaten MN (2004) Electrophysiological
correlates of attention, inhibition, sensitivity and bias in a continu-
ous performance task. Clin Neurophysiol 115:2001–2013.
Bekker EM, Kenemans JL, Verbaten MN (2005) Source analysis of the
N2 in a cued Go/NoGo task. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 22:221–231.
Bokura H, Yamaguchi S, Kobayashi S (2001) Electrophysiological
correlates for response inhibition in a go/nogo task. Clin Neuro-
physiol 112:2224 –2232.
Botvinick MM, Cohen JD, Carter CS (2004) Conflict monitoring and
anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends Cogn Sci 8:539 –546.
Brass M, Ullsperger M, Knoesche TR, von Cramon DY, Phillips NA
(2005) Who comes first? The role of the prefrontal and parietal
cortex in cognitive control. J Cogn Neurosci 17:1367–1375.
Bruin KJ, Wijers AA (2002) Inhibition, response mode, and stimulus
probability: a comparative event-related potential study. Clin Neu-
rophysiol 113:1172–1182.
(Accepted 7 February 2011)
(Available online 15 February 2011)
Bruin KJ, Wijers AA, van Staveren AS (2001) Response priming in a
go/nogo task: do we have to explain the go/nogo N2 effect in terms
of response activation instead of inhibition? Clin Neurophysiol
112:1660 –1671.
Bunge SA, Dudukovic NM, Thomason ME, Vaidya CJ, Gabrieli JDE
(2002) Immature frontal lobe contributions to cognitive control in
children: evidence from fMRI. Neuron 33:301–311.
Calero MD, García-Martín MB, Jiménez MI, Kazén M, Araque A (2007)
Self-regulation advantage for high-IQ children: findings from a
research study. Learn Individ Differ 17:328 –343.
Donkers FC, van Boxtel GJ (2004) The N2 in go/no-go tasks reflects
conflict monitoring not response inhibition. Brain Cogn 56:165–176.
Duan X, Shi J, Wu J, Mou Y, Cui H, Wang G (2009) Electrophysio-
logical correlates for response inhibition in intellectually gifted chil-
dren: a go/nogo study. Neurosci Lett 457:45– 48.
Duncan J (2003) Intelligence tests predict brain response to demand-
ing task events. Nat Neurosci 6:207–208.
Falkenstein M (2006) Inhibition, conflict and the nogo-N2. Clin Neuro-
physiol 117:1638 –1640.
Freitas AL, Azizian A, Leung HC, Squires NK (2007) Resisting recently
acted-on cues: compatibility of go/nogo responses to response
history modulates (frontal P3) event-related potentials. Psycho-
physiology 44:2–10.
Gray JR, Chabris CF, Braver TS (2003) Neural mechanisms of general
fluid intelligence. Nat Neurosci 6:316 –322.
Green DM, Swets JA (1966) Signal detection theory and psychophys-
ics. New York: Wiley.
Jaušovec N, Jaušovec K (2000) Correlations between ERP parame-
ters and intelligence: a reconsideration. Biol Psychol 50:137–154.
Johnson J, Im-Bolter N, Pascual-Leone J (2003) Development of
mental attention in gifted and mainstream children: the role of
mental capacity, inhibition, and speed of processing. Child Dev 74:
1594 –1641.
Jonkman LM (2006) The development of preparation, conflict moni-
toring and inhibition from early childhood to young adulthood: a
go/nogo ERP study. Brain Res 1097:181–193.
Liu T, Shi J, Zhang Q, Zhao D, Yang J (2007) Neural mechanisms of
auditory sensory processing in children with high intelligence. Neu-
roreport 18:1571–1575.
Neubauer AC, Fink A (2003) Fluid intelligence and neural efficiency:
effects of task complexity and sex. Pers Individ Dif 35:811– 827.
Neubauer AC, Fink A (2009) Intelligence and neural efficiency. Neu-
rosci Biobehav Rev 33:1004 –1023.
Neubauer AC, Grabner RH, Freudenthaler HH, Beckmann JF, Guthke
J (2004) Intelligence and individual differences in becoming neu-
rally efficient. Acta Psychol (Amst) 116:55–74.
Segalowitz SJ, Davies PL (2004) Charting the maturation of the frontal
lobe: an electrophysiological strategy. Brain Cogn 55:116 –133.
Segalowitz SJ, Unsal A, Dywan J (1992) Cleverness and wisdom in
12-year-olds: electrophysiological evidence for late maturation of
the frontal lobe. Dev Neuropsychol 8:279 –298.
Shaw P, Greenstein D, Lerch J, Clasen L, Lenroot R, Gogtay N, Evans
A, Rapoport J, Giedd J (2006) Intellectual ability and cortical de-
velopment in children and adolescents. Nature 440:676 – 679.
Smith JL, Johnstone SJ, Barry RJ (2008) Movement-related potentials
in the go/nogo task: the P3 reflects both cognitive and motor
inhibition. Clin Neurophysiol 119:704 –714.
van Veen V, Carter CS (2002) The timing of action-monitoring pro-
cesses in the anterior cingulate cortex. J Cogn Neurosci 14:
593– 602.
Wickens TD (2002) Elementary signal detection theory. New York:
Oxford University Press.