On the time-course and frequency selectivity of the EEG for different modes of response selection: Evidence from speech production and keyboard pressing
Abstract
Objective To compare brain activity in the alpha and beta bands in relation to different modes of response selection, and to assess the domain generality of the response selection mechanism using verbal and non-verbal tasks. Methods We examined alpha and beta event-related desynchronization (ERD) to analyze brain reactivity during the selection of verbal (word production) and non-verbal motor actions (keyboard pressing) under two different response modes: externally selected and self-selected. Results An alpha and beta ERD was observed for both the verbal and non-verbal tasks in both the externally and the self-selected modes. For both tasks, the beta ERD started earlier and was longer in the self-selected mode than in the externally selected mode. The overall pattern of results between the verbal and non-verbal motor behaviors was similar. Conclusions The pattern of alpha and beta ERD is affected by the mode of response selection suggesting that the activity in both frequency bands contributes to the process of selecting actions. We suggest that activity in the alpha band may reflect attentional processes while activity in the beta band may be more closely related to the execution and selection process. Significance These results suggest that a domain general process contributes to the planning of speech and other motor actions. This finding has potential clinical implications, for the use of diverse motor tasks to treat disorders of motor planning.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The automaticity of typing reduces the level of neural engagement necessary for deeper cognitive processing, potentially leading to diminished memory retention compared with handwriting.
“Barton et al. [32] and Tremblay et al. [41] suggest that the automaticity of typing reduces the level of neural engagement necessary for deeper cognitive processing, potentially leading to diminished memory retention compared with handwriting.”
From The Neuroscience Behind Writing: Handwriting vs. Typing—Who Wins the Battle? (2025) · cites this paper as [41]
Handwriting enhances the ability to recognize and recall information due to its more demanding cognitive nature.
“The work of Tremblay et al. [41] further supports this, indicating that handwriting enhances the ability to recognize and recall information due to its more demanding cognitive nature”
From The Neuroscience Behind Writing: Handwriting vs. Typing—Who Wins the Battle? (2025) · cites this paper as [41]
Cites
Pfurtscheller, G., Stancák, A., & Neuper, C. (1996) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/s0167-8760(96)00066-9 · Cited by 1,205 · see citing works
The role of the supplementary motor area (SMA) in word production
Alario, F.-X., Chainay, H., Lehericy, S., & Cohen, L. (2006) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2005.11.104 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
Lee, K.-M., Chang, K.-H., & Roh, J.-K. (1999) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.1998.0393 · Cited by 241 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Neuroscience Behind Writing: Handwriting vs. Typing—Who Wins the Battle?
Marano, G., Kotzalidis, G. D., Lisci, F. M., Anesini, M. B., Rossi, S., Barbonetti, S., Cangini, A., Ronsisvalle, A., Artuso, L., Falsini, C., et al. (2025) · Life · doi:10.3390/life15030345 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tremblay, P., Shiller, D. M., & Gracco, V. L.
- Affiliations
- McGill University (CA)
- Haskins Laboratories (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tremblay, Pascale
- Venue
- Clinical Neurophysiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-01
- Volume
- 119
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 88-99
- ISSN
- 1388-2457 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2069333777
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 0.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Corpus Université Laval (Université Laval) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- response selection, alpha event-related desynchronization, speech production, motor planning, domain generality, attention, frequency selectivity
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Alpha Rhythm, Beta Rhythm, Brain, Brain Mapping, Choice Behavior, Electromyography, Female, Humans, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Speech, Time Factors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review