Brain potentials reveal reduced attention and error-processing during a monetary Go/No-Go task in procrastination

Abstract

Procrastination is a self-regulatory problem of voluntarily and destructively delaying intended and necessary or personally important tasks. Previous studies showed that procrastination is associated with executive dysfunctions that seem to be particularly strong in punishing contexts. In the present event-related potential (ERP) study a monetary version of the parametric Go/No-Go task was performed by high and low academic procrastinators to verify the influence of motivational context (reward vs. punishment expectation) and task difficulty (easy vs. hard) on procrastination-related executive dysfunctions. The results revealed increased post-error slowing along with reduced P300 and error-related negativity (ERN) amplitudes in high (vs. low) procrastination participants-effects that indicate impaired attention and error-related processing in this group. This pattern of results did not differ as a function of task difficulty and motivation condition. However, when the task got more difficult executive attention deficits became even more apparent at the behavioral level in high procrastinators, as indexed by increased reaction time variability. The findings substantiate prior preliminary evidence that procrastinators show difficulties in certain aspects of executive functioning (in attention and error processing) during execution of task-relevant behavior, which may be more apparent in highly demanding situations.

Figure 1

Parametric Go/No-Go Task. Each level consisted of 350 stimuli (5 blocks; 20% No-Go signals). On the first level of difficulty (top), digits 4–9 were used as Go and two other digits (here 1 and 2) as No-Go signals. On the second level (bottom), subjects had to withhold the reaction to one No-Go digit (here 0) and to repeated Go stimuli. Feedback presented at the end of each block indicated total loss (punishment condition) or profit (reward condition) for each block.

Figure 2

Sensor outline of the EGI HCGSN 130 electrode net (original image downloaded from https://www.egi.com/images/stories/manuals/Second%20Batch%20of%20IFUs%20with%20new%20Notified%20Body%20Jan%202019/GSN_tman_8105171-51_20181231.pdf). Sensors clusters used for ERP analysis are marked in blue (for ERN) and green (for P300).

Figure 3

Reaction time variability in high and low procrastinators as a function of difficulty level in the PGNG task. Error bars represent one standard error.

Figure 4

Differences in post-error slowing between high and low procrastinators. Error bars represent one standard error.

Figure 5

(A) Stimulus-locked ERPs averaged over left parietal cluster displayed for Go and No-Go stimuli in the high (HP) and low (LP) procrastination group; (B) Scalp potential difference between HP and LP in 260–380 time window after stimulus averaged for Go and No-Go signals.

Figure 6

(A) ERPs elicited over frontal cluster by responses to No-Go signals in high (HP) and low (LP) procrastinators; (B) Scalp potential difference between HP and LP in a time window from 34 before to 84 ms after responses to No-Go signals.