Studies – Michael Falkenstein and William Gehring The Lateralized Readiness

The investigation of human volition, motor preparation, and cognitive action monitoring represents one of the most intellectually profound chapters in cognitive neuroscience and electrophysiology. For decades following the advent of electroencephalography (EEG), researchers struggled to isolate the millisecond-by-millisecond neural dynamics that bridge abstract decisional intentions and peripheral muscular contraction. The classic paradigm of human reaction time, pioneered by Franciscus Donders in the nineteenth century, conceptualized mental chronometry as a sequence of discrete, impenetrable stages. It was not until the latter half of the twentieth century, catalyzed by the discovery of movement-related cortical potentials, that scientists gained the empirical instruments necessary to deconstruct the covert architecture of the human motor system in real time.

Central to this revolution was the mathematical formulation and psychophysiological validation of the Lateralized Readiness Potential (LRP). Developed through the pioneering work of Michael G. H. Coles, Gabriele Gratton, Emanuel Donchin, and Henk van der Molen, the LRP provided an unprecedented window into asymmetric motor cortex activation, permitting researchers to observe the activation of specific motor channels long before overt electromyographic (EMG) deflection or mechanical keypresses occurred. However, the theoretical utility of the LRP reached its full fruition through the transformative empirical contributions of two preeminent cognitive neuroscientists: Michael Falkenstein in Germany and William J. Gehring in the United States. Working both independently and in parallel during the late 1980s and early 1990s, Falkenstein and Gehring utilized the LRP not merely as a passive chronometric marker, but as an active, dynamic probe to unravel the cybernetic mechanisms of motor competition, action monitoring, error detection, and central executive control.

Their independent yet converging discoveries—most notably Falkenstein’s identification of the Fehlernegativität (Ne) and Gehring’s conceptualization of the Error-Related Negativity (ERN)—crystallized the modern understanding of how the human brain tracks covert motor slips, evaluates conflict between competing response channels, and dynamically adjusts motor thresholds. This treatise presents an exhaustive academic examination of the theoretical foundations, methodological algorithms, neuroanatomical substrates, lifespan trajectories, and clinical ramifications of the research paradigms spearheaded by Michael Falkenstein and William Gehring. Through the lens of the Lateralized Readiness Potential, their work unifies the chronometric decomposition of information processing with the neurobiology of self-regulation and executive function.

1. Theoretical Foundations of Electrophysiological Motor Preparation

1.1 Historical Emergence of Movement-Related Cortical Potentials

The scientific lineage of the Lateralized Readiness Potential originates with the landmark discovery of the Bereitschaftspotential (BP), or readiness potential, by Hans Helmut Kornhuber and Lüder Deecke in 1965 at the University of Freiburg. Utilizing reverse-averaging magnetic tape systems to synchronize electroencephalographic signals relative to the onset of self-initiated, voluntary finger movements, Kornhuber and Deecke demonstrated that voluntary action is preceded by a protracted, slow-rising negative electrical potential recorded at the human scalp. This negative DC shift begins anywhere from 1,000 to 1,500 milliseconds prior to mechanical movement execution, signaling the slow recruiting of widespread cortical assemblies engaged in intentional motor planning.

Subsequent psychophysiological dissections demonstrated that the Bereitschaftspotential is not a monolithic waveform, but rather consists of distinct chronometric and spatial phases. The early component, termed the BP1 or early readiness potential, develops symmetrically over bilateral prefrontal, supplementary motor (SMA), and pre-supplementary motor areas, extending from approximately -1,500 ms to -500 ms relative to movement onset. This early phase reflects non-specific intentional set, motivational drive, and high-level motor programming. Conversely, the late component, termed the BP2 or late readiness potential (occurring from roughly -500 ms down to the onset of peripheral electromyographic activity), undergoes a critical spatial transformation: it progressively lateralizes, displaying steepening negative amplitudes over the primary motor cortex (M1, Brodmann Area 4) contralateral to the performing limb.

This empirical shift from diffuse bilateral negativity to hemisphere-specific lateralization exposed fundamental theoretical questions regarding the demarcation between central cognitive preparation and peripheral neuromuscular execution. Early psychophysiological models struggled to dissociate the general preparatory processes—such as temporal orienting, arousal, selective attention, and target evaluation—from specific motoric preparation destined for an effector. Scalp recordings obtained from unilateral electrode sites (such as vertex electrode Cz) inherently conflated general task-related cognitive shifts, such as the Contingent Negative Variation (CNV) described by Walter and colleagues, with unvarnished motor output commands. Resolving this ambiguity necessitated the implementation of bilateral scalp electrode montages across the precentral motor strips (specifically C3 and C4 coordinates of the International 10-20 system), laying the conceptual groundwork for differential subtraction techniques capable of isolating pure hemispheric lateralization.

1.2 The Mathematical and Conceptual Architecture of the Lateralized Readiness Potential

The formal mathematical and theoretical architecture of the Lateralized Readiness Potential was established in the late 1980s by two independent research groups: Michael G. H. Coles, Gabriele Gratton, and Emanuel Donchin at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (1988), and Henk de Jong, Marty Wierda, Geert Mulder, and Lambertus Mulder at the University of Groningen (1988). The profound conceptual breakthrough of the LRP rested upon the double subtraction algorithm, an algebraic method devised to eliminate completely all non-motoric, symmetrical cognitive event-related potentials (ERPs) occurring concurrently in the brain.

In standard choice reaction time paradigms requiring a differential response with the left versus right hand, any raw electrode recording over the motor cortices (C3 over the left hemisphere and C4 over the right hemisphere) captures a composite mixture of symmetrical electrophysiological phenomena. These include the visual or auditory sensory evoked potentials (N1, P2), orienting complexes (N2), parieto-central decision-related positivities (P300/P3b), and diffuse preparatory CNV shifts. The double subtraction method systematically neutralizes these symmetric, non-motor components by capitalizing on the neuroanatomical fact that the primary motor cortex projects predominantly to the contralateral limb via the lateral corticospinal tract. By subtracting ipsilateral activation from contralateral activation across alternating hand conditions and averaging the differences, any electrical potential that does not switch hemisphere as a function of response hand cancels out to zero.

The resulting differential waveform provides a pure index of asymmetric motor activation. Furthermore, researchers established the crucial operational dichotomy between stimulus-locked LRPs (S-LRP) and response-locked LRPs (R-LRP). When EEG epochs are time-locked to the onset of the imperative stimulus (S-LRP), the waveform tracks the duration of pre-motoric cognitive operations, including stimulus encoding, feature identification, and response selection. When epochs are time-locked backward from the overt behavioral response or EMG onset (R-LRP), the waveform isolates the final common pathway: motor programming, corticospinal discharge, and peripheral execution latencies. Intracranial recordings, functional imaging, and dipole source modeling have rigorously validated this signal, demonstrating that its primary generators reside within the hand representation of Brodmann Area 4 and the adjacent dorsal premotor cortex.

1.3 Cognitive Chronometry and Mental Architecture Models

The establishment of the LRP completely transformed mental chronometry, rescuing cognitive psychology from the limitations of overt reaction time (RT). In classical Dondersian subtraction logic and Saul Sternberg’s Additive Factors Method (AFM), reaction time was treated as a unitary macroscopic duration. If an experimental manipulation lengthened RT, researchers inferred that a cognitive stage had been prolonged, yet they could not directly determine *which* stage was affected without making unprovable assumptions of pure insertion and serial independence. The LRP pierced this methodological barrier by partitioning macroscopic reaction time into two neurophysiologically grounded epochs: the interval from stimulus onset to LRP onset (premotor transmission and stimulus evaluation) and the interval from LRP onset to overt response execution (motor execution interval).

More fundamentally, the LRP provided the empirical pivot point in the grand theoretical clash between discrete stage models and continuous flow models of human information processing. Classical serial stage models (e.g., Sternberg, Sanders) asserted that central cognitive processing occurs in rigid, modular compartments: a response cannot be prepared until stimulus evaluation and response selection are fully concluded. Conversely, continuous flow and cascade models (e.g., McClelland, 1979; Miller, 1982) posited that preliminary, partial information cascades continuously through the cognitive architecture, allowing peripheral response systems to activate before central decisional processes reach final closure.

The LRP resolved this debate empirically. By analyzing trials wherein partial or preliminary stimulus information favored a specific response hand before full evaluation was complete, researchers observed early, transient LRP deflections toward the primed hand. This verified that motor activation cascades dynamically prior to the completion of high-level decisional stages. Furthermore, the LRP demonstrated that response activation occurs continuously below the threshold of peripheral electromyographic activity, exposing an entire subterranean domain of motor preparation that had remained invisible to traditional behavioral metrics.

2. Methodological Paradigms and Signal Derivation in LRP Research

2.1 The Double Subtraction Algorithm and Vector Quantifications

The derivation of the Lateralized Readiness Potential depends upon a rigorous algebraic subtraction protocol designed to exploit the crossed somatotopic organization of the corticospinal motor system. Standard recordings position active electrodes over the hand representation areas of the precentral gyrus, universally designated as C3 (left central scalp, overlying the hand area of the left primary motor cortex) and C4 (right central scalp, overlying the hand area of the right primary motor cortex), frequently supplemented by intermediate locations such as C3′ and C4′ located 1 cm anterior or posterior to maximize signal-to-noise ratios.

The standard algebraic formulation developed by Coles and colleagues executes the double subtraction through the following equation:

LRP = [ (C4 – C3)_{left hand} – (C4 – C3)_{right hand} ] / 2

An alternative, algebraically equivalent formulation frequently employed by European laboratories, including Falkenstein and colleagues, is defined as:

LRP = [ (C3 – C4)_{right hand} + (C4 – C3)_{left hand} ] / 2

In both formulations, the algorithmic mechanism functions identically. Consider a right-hand response: motor preparation elicits an enhanced surface negativity over the contralateral left motor cortex (C3) relative to the ipsilateral right motor cortex (C4), yielding a negative difference value when subtracting C3 from C4. For a left-hand response, contralateral negativity emerges over C4 relative to C3. By calculating the difference between contralateral and ipsilateral sites within each hand condition and then averaging those differences across hands, any electrophysiological asymmetry unrelated to the effector—such as lateralized visual sensory asymmetries provoked by unilateral visual stimuli, sensory hemi-field biases, or asymmetric hemispheric alpha desynchronization—is systematically neutralized.

The methodological execution of this algorithm mandates meticulous technical controls. Because the LRP is a low-amplitude potential (typically ranging between 1 to 5 microvolts), it is profoundly vulnerable to low-frequency baseline drifts, galvanic skin artifacts, and high-frequency noise. Direct-current (DC) or high-input-impedance amplifiers with long time constants (typically > 5 to 10 seconds) are necessary to prevent the artificial attenuation or phase distortion of slow preparatory shifts. High-pass filter cutoffs must be set extremely low (e.g., 0.01 to 0.05 Hz) because conventional 0.1 Hz or 0.5 Hz clinical filters introduce severe phase-shift artifacts that artificially distort the onset latency and slope of slow motor waveforms. Baseline corrections are typically anchored to a pre-stimulus interval of 100 to 200 ms for stimulus-locked averages, or a neutral epoch prior to the onset of the motor burst for response-locked averages.

2.2 Stimulus-Locked versus Response-Locked Chronometric Segmentation

The temporal parsing of the Lateralized Readiness Potential into stimulus-locked (S-LRP) and response-locked (R-LRP) representations constitutes one of the most powerful analytical techniques in cognitive psychophysiology. Each segmentation strategy provides an independent temporal window into separate functional strata of the human action system, as illustrated in the comparative taxonomy below:

• Stimulus-Locked LRP (S-LRP): Epochs are synchronized to the physical appearance of the stimulus (Time 0). The temporal duration from stimulus onset to the statistical departure of the S-LRP from baseline (the S-LRP onset latency) indexes the cumulative duration of sensory encoding, cognitive feature extraction, category classification, and response selection. Experimental variables that prolong S-LRP latency directly affect perceptual or decisional processing stages.
• Response-Locked LRP (R-LRP): Epochs are synchronized backward from the overt behavioral execution, such as the mechanical closure of a microswitch or the onset of surface electromyography (Time 0). The duration between R-LRP onset and the response execution (the R-LRP onset latency, typically a negative value such as -150 to -200 ms) represents the invariant time required for motor programming, ballistic corticospinal volley generation, peripheral transmission, and muscle excitation. Experimental manipulations that selectively alter central motor execution prolong R-LRP duration while leaving S-LRP onset unaffected.

The statistical identification of LRP onset latency has historically generated substantial methodological debate. Traditional approaches relied on visual inspection or arbitrary absolute voltage thresholds (e.g., the moment the waveform exceeds -1.0 microvolt), both of which are notoriously susceptible to residual noise and investigator bias. To establish objective rigor, researchers developed fractional peak latency metrics (determining the latency at which the LRP reaches a specific percentage, typically 30% or 50%, of its maximal peak amplitude) and segmented linear regression methods, which fit dual regression lines to the pre-activation baseline and the rising slope of the waveform, identifying the intersection point as the true physiological onset.

A transformative mathematical innovation in this domain was the adaptation of the jackknife resampling procedure by Rolf Ulrich and Jeff Miller (2001). Because individual single-trial LRPs are dominated by high-amplitude background EEG noise, computing onset latencies on individual subject averages frequently yields chaotic, unreliable values. The jackknife procedure circumvents this by calculating n sub-average LRP waveforms, each omitting one participant from the sample of size n. Onset latencies are measured on these highly stable grand-average sub-samples, and the resulting statistical comparisons (such as ANOVA) are adjusted using the Ulrich-Miller correction factor (dividing the conventional F-value by (n – 1)²). This algorithmic integration achieved unprecedented statistical power and mathematical reproducibility in cognitive chronometry.

2.3 Electromyography Co-Registration and Peripheral Verification

A pure electrophysiological deconstruction of human motor preparation cannot rely exclusively on scalp-recorded potentials; it necessitates simultaneous, high-precision co-registration of peripheral surface electromyography (EMG). Surface electrodes placed in bipolar configurations over agonist muscle groups—most commonly the abductor pollicis brevis, thenar eminence, abductor digiti minimi, or forearm flexor groups (such as the flexor digitorum superficialis)—provide the empirical ground truth for peripheral motor execution.

The co-registration of EMG serves several critical methodological functions in LRP research. Primarily, it establishes a decisive physiological boundary between the central motor command and peripheral mechanical execution. The interval between cortical LRP onset and peripheral EMG onset represents pure central motor transmission via the corticospinal tract. The subsequent interval between EMG onset and the physical displacement of a response key—often termed the *motor execution time* or *electromechanical delay* (typically 30 to 80 ms)—reflects peripheral muscle excitation-contraction coupling, viscoelastic tension development, and mechanical inertia. Without EMG monitoring, mechanical switches misattribute peripheral mechanical variations to central cognitive delays.

Even more profound was the discovery, heavily leveraged by both Falkenstein and Gehring, of sub-threshold partial EMG activations. In speeded choice reaction time tasks, the brain frequently initiates a motor command toward an incorrect effector that is arrested prior to mechanical depression. High-gain EMG reveals minute, covert muscle twitches (partial errors) that remain completely invisible to behavioral logging systems. By gating LRP epochs contingent upon the presence or absence of sub-threshold EMG bursts, researchers can verify whether an early dip in the LRP represents pure intracortical motor competition or an aborted peripheral command. Furthermore, continuous EMG monitoring enables the rigorous exclusion of premature postural adjustments, tonic baseline contractions, and tonic motor co-activations that would otherwise introduce devastating volume-conducted artifacts into cortical readiness derivations.

3. Michael Falkenstein: Formative Investigations and Empirical Paradigms

3.1 Early Psychophysiological Paradigms at the Dortmund Institute

During the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, the Institut für Arbeitsphysiologie an der Universität Dortmund (IfADo) emerged as an international epicenter for advanced psychophysiological research. It was within this rigorous environment that Michael Falkenstein, alongside distinguished colleagues such as Jörg Hohnsbein and Jochen Hoormann, established experimental paradigms designed to systematically map the flow of cognitive information from sensory perception to central executive action.

Falkenstein and the Dortmund group recognized that earlier mental chronometry was severely limited by single-channel recordings and unstandardized stimulus modalities. They constructed multi-channel electroencephalographic systems capable of recording high-precision event-related potentials across diverse sensory inputs. A cornerstone of Falkenstein’s methodology was the systematic, parametric manipulation of stimulus modalities across both auditory and visual domains. By designing complex choice reaction time paradigms—such as four-choice tasks, sensory discrimination tasks, and modality-shifting protocols—Falkenstein sought to map how central executive processes adjudicate between competing stimulus inputs and translate perceptual decisions into lateralized motor programs.

Crucially, Falkenstein integrated the Lateralized Readiness Potential into these paradigms as an objective chronometric index of response selection bottlenecks. By establishing the exact temporal locus where sensory factors ceased to modulate the electrophysiological trace and where motor lateralization commenced, Falkenstein demonstrated that bottlenecks in human choice reaction time frequently do not reside in the sensory analysis machinery itself, nor in peripheral execution, but are localized within the central executive translation rules mapping stimuli to specific motor effectors. This empirical foundation positioned the Dortmund laboratory to make one of the most seminal discoveries in modern cognitive neuroscience.

3.2 The Identification of Error-Related Brain Potentials (Fehlernegativität)

Between 1990 and 1991, Michael Falkenstein and his colleagues published a series of historic empirical investigations that fundamentally altered the landscape of action monitoring. While analyzing response-locked event-related potentials in speeded choice reaction time tasks, Falkenstein observed a dramatic, unprecedented electrophysiological phenomenon selectively tied to human performance failures. When participants committed an incorrect motor response, the scalp EEG revealed a massive, sharp negative deflection emerging precisely at the moment of overt error execution.

Falkenstein initially designated this component the Fehlernegativität (German for “error negativity”, universally abbreviated as Ne). In their foundational 1990 and 1991 papers (Falkenstein et al., 1990; Falkenstein et al., 1991), the Dortmund researchers documented that the Ne initiates concurrently with or immediately following the onset of erroneous electromyographic activity, reaching its negative peak approximately 70 to 100 milliseconds post-response. Scalp topography revealed a distinct fronto-central distribution, with maximal amplitudes localized over the FCz and Cz electrode sites.

Falkenstein’s genius lay in his simultaneous analysis of the Ne alongside the Lateralized Readiness Potential. By tracking the response-locked LRP on error trials, Falkenstein revealed the underlying mechanics of error generation: on an error trial, the brain initiates a robust, ballistic LRP trajectory toward the *incorrect* hand. However, virtually simultaneous with or shortly after the initial motor discharge, a rapid reversal occurs, characterized by the emergence of the Ne and a subsequent compensatory LRP vector directed toward the correct, intended hand. Falkenstein meticulously differentiated the Ne from the small negative deflection seen on correct trials (what would later be termed the Correct-Response Negativity, or CRN), demonstrating that the Ne was an authentic, qualitatively distinct neurobiological marker of action failure and mismatch processing.

3.3 Falkenstein’s Deconstruction of Premotor Information Flow

Armed with the dual metrics of the LRP and the Ne, Michael Falkenstein executed a series of sophisticated investigations deconstructing premotor information flow within stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) architectures. He recognized that human motor actions are constantly caught in a cross-fire between automatic, reflexive visuomotor affordances and controlled, goal-directed behavioral rules.

Employing modified spatial compatibility paradigms and visual Stroop analogues, Falkenstein mapped the precise time-course of automatic versus controlled motor activations. In paradigms where the spatial location of a stimulus conflicted with the hand assigned to respond, Falkenstein showed that the central nervous system does not wait for controlled response selection to complete before activating motor channels. Instead, the LRP traces an immediate, automatic deflection in favor of the spatially compatible—yet objectively incorrect—motor channel. If cognitive control is sufficiently robust, this premature activation is actively suppressed, visible in the LRP trace as an early “dip” or polarity reversal, followed by the emergence of the correct lateralized preparation.

Furthermore, Falkenstein conducted vital methodological studies evaluating the impact of digital signal processing parameters on these subtle motor deflections. He proved that inappropriate high-pass filtering (such as steep 1 Hz or 0.5 Hz finite impulse response filters) could artificially simulate early LRP dips or distort the rising slope of readiness potentials, creating phantom physiological effects out of phase distortion. His rigorous standardization of baseline windows, filter properties, and artifact rejection protocols established the technical benchmark for twentieth-century cognitive psychophysiology.

4. William Gehring: Computational Action Monitoring and the Motor System

4.1 The Michigan Framework: Parallel Activation and Action Monitoring

Simultaneously across the Atlantic at the University of Michigan, William J. Gehring—working in close intellectual partnership with Michael G. H. Coles, David E. Meyer, and Emanuel Donchin—was formulating an advanced computational and psychophysiological framework of human action control. The Michigan group was intensely focused on resolving the architecture of motor channel dynamics: how the brain coordinates parallel motor activations, monitors ongoing behavioral output, and exercises real-time cognitive control.

This collaboration culminated in Gehring’s monumental 1993 publication in Psychological Science, entitled “A New Brain Marker for On-Line Movement Tracking.” Gehring investigated speeded choice reaction time using the Eriksen flanker paradigm, capitalizing on the high temporal resolution of multi-channel ERPs and the LRP. Gehring independently identified the identical negative potential discovered by Falkenstein, formalizing its designation in the Anglophone literature as the Error-Related Negativity (ERN).

Gehring’s theoretical framework went far beyond merely reporting an empirical waveform; he embedded the ERN within a comprehensive cybernetic model of executive functioning. Drawing upon classical control theory and the neurobiological concept of the efference copy (originating from the physiological work of Erich von Holst and Horst Mittelstaedt), Gehring proposed that when a central motor command is dispatched from cortical motor areas to the spinal cord, an internal collateral copy—an efference copy—is simultaneously routed to an executive monitoring system. Gehring posited that the ERN is generated the instant this efference copy is compared against an internal representation of the behavioral goal. Because this comparator operates on an internal copy rather than awaiting sluggish peripheral proprioceptive or visual feedback, the brain detects its own errors virtually concurrently with the initial muscle twitch, enabling instantaneous remediation.

4.2 Quantifying Premotor Competition via LRP Dynamics

William Gehring recognized that the Lateralized Readiness Potential was the ideal tool to quantitatively test parallel distributed processing models of motor control. In classical flanker tasks, central target arrows are flanked by congruent (e.g., →→→→→) or incongruent (e.g., →→←→→) distractors. Traditional reaction time models could only record that incongruent trials produced prolonged latencies and higher error rates. Gehring utilized the LRP to visualize the hidden, dynamic war of attrition fought between motor channels prior to movement.

Gehring demonstrated that on incongruent flanker trials, the LRP exhibits an initial, statistically robust deflection toward the *unintended* motor channel—directly induced by the processing of the flanking distractors. This early false-route activation occurs well before the central target can be fully processed. Gehring mathematically modeled these trajectories, proving that the probability of committing an overt error is directly proportional to the slope and amplitude of this initial incorrect LRP deflection. If the initial activation exceeds a critical threshold, an overt error is mechanically committed.

However, Gehring’s most striking finding was what occurred on trials where an error was committed: the LRP revealed that the brain initiated compensatory braking mechanisms *before* the overt error had even concluded its physical trajectory. The incorrect-response LRP reversed its polarity mid-trajectory, indicating that the motor cortex was already firing commands to the correct muscle group to terminate the error and deploy remedial action. This provided undeniable empirical proof that human motor control is not a ballistic, open-loop process, but an intensely continuous, closed-loop cybernetic system capable of tracking partial errors and correcting motor vectors on the fly.

4.3 Gehring’s Integrated Cybernetic Model of Action Control

Synthesizing these empirical discoveries, Gehring developed an integrated cybernetic model of action control that explicitly married the Error-Related Negativity to the dynamics of the Lateralized Readiness Potential. In Gehring’s architecture, action monitoring and action execution form an indissoluble regulatory loop:

Cybernetic Component	Electrophysiological Substrate	Functional Mechanism
Motor Vector Activation	Lateralized Readiness Potential (LRP)	Dynamic accumulation of evidence in primary and premotor cortices toward an effector threshold.
Efference Copy Comparator	Error-Related Negativity (ERN)	Rapid, anterior cingulate-driven computation of mismatch between intended goal and efference command.
Remedial Brake & Correction	LRP Polarity Inversion & EMG Arrest	Inhibition of incorrect agonist motor channel; rapid deployment of contralateral compensatory activation.
Strategic Threshold Reset	Post-Error Slowing & Delayed S-LRP	Up-regulation of response thresholds on subsequent trials to enforce speed-accuracy tradeoff optimization.

Gehring showed that the amplitude of the ERN was not static; it dynamically predicted subsequent post-error behavioral adjustments. Larger ERN amplitudes on error trials systematically correlated with greater post-error slowing (PES) on the subsequent trial. Crucially, by examining the LRP on post-error trials, Gehring confirmed that post-error slowing is mediated by a deliberate, strategic delay in the onset of the stimulus-locked LRP. The action monitoring system, having signaled a severe performance failure via the ERN, dynamically resets the motor activation threshold within the basal ganglia and prefrontal cortex, forcing the cognitive apparatus to accumulate significantly more sensory evidence before releasing the lateralized motor command on subsequent trials.

5. The Intersecting Discoveries: LRP, ERN/Ne, and Motor Conflict

5.1 The Convergence of Falkenstein’s Ne and Gehring’s ERN

The simultaneous, independent discovery of the error potential by Michael Falkenstein in Dortmund and William Gehring in Ann Arbor constitutes one of the classic instances of scientific convergence in modern psychology. Working within distinct intellectual environments and utilizing differing primary paradigms—Falkenstein emphasizing sensory modalities, complex choice tasks, and the German tradition of mental chronometry; Gehring embedded within the American computational, information-processing, and psychophysiological framework of Coles and Donchin—both investigators arrived at the identical fundamental biological phenomenon.

In the early 1990s, a lively scientific dialogue unfolded regarding nomenclature and theoretical interpretation. Falkenstein’s descriptive term Fehlernegativität (Ne) highlighted the structural association with performance errors, conceptualizing the component as an electrophysiological reflection of a mismatch detection process between the sensory representation of the actual response and the internal representation of the correct task set. Gehring’s term Error-Related Negativity (ERN) placed explicit emphasis on the cybernetic monitoring system and efference copy mechanics. Comparative workshops, transatlantic visits, and joint symposia rapidly established consensus: the Ne and ERN were identical physical and neurobiological entities.

The harmonization of these empirical paradigms transformed cognitive neuroscience. The convergence proved that the waveform was neither an artifact of specific visual stimulus configurations nor an idiosyncrasy of specific laboratory recording apparatus. Whether elicited by auditory discrimination, spatial compatibility tasks, or letter flanker arrays, the Ne/ERN consistently emerged at the transition point where central decision-making collapsed and erroneous motor commands breached cortical boundaries.

5.2 Pre-Response LRP Dynamics in Error Generation

A central pillar uniting the work of Falkenstein and Gehring was their relentless focus on pre-response LRP dynamics during error generation. Prior to their work, traditional psychological doctrine conceptualized an error as the output of an incorrect decision: the cognitive system evaluated the stimulus incorrectly, made an erroneous choice, and executed that choice through the motor system. Under this discrete view, an error trial should look electrophysiologically identical to a correct trial, merely executed by the opposite hand.

Falkenstein and Gehring disproved this assumption entirely. Through fine-grained micro-analyses of the LRP, they demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of errors in speeded tasks represent premature motor activations. On error trials, the LRP does not simply rise smoothly toward the incorrect hand; rather, it often shows chaotic, high-slope early trajectories driven by fast, partial visual processing or automatic stimulus-response affordances. In many cases, the cognitive system correctly identifies the true target almost immediately after releasing the premature command, but the command has already passed what physiologists term the *point of no return*.

This dynamic is captured vividly in the phenomenon of the LRP dip and reversal. On error trials that are rapidly corrected by the participant, the response-locked LRP demonstrates a profound polarity inversion: the waveform initially deflects in the direction of the incorrect hand, peaks sharply near EMG onset, and then immediately plunges across the zero-voltage baseline into opposite polarity, signifying massive, emergency recruitment of the contralateral motor cortex to actuate the correct response. This empirical visualization of pre-response motor vector contention dealt a fatal blow to discrete serial models, providing incontrovertible evidence for continuous, competitive transmission within the human corticospinal pathway.

5.3 Conflict Monitoring vs. Comparator Hypotheses in Motor Output

The intersection of Falkenstein’s and Gehring’s findings ignited one of the most celebrated theoretical debates in cognitive neuroscience: the competition between the Comparator Model and the Conflict Monitoring Hypothesis.

The Comparator Model, championed and refined by Gehring, Coles, and Falkenstein, asserted that the action monitoring system operates as a classic servomechanism. It requires two distinct inputs: a representation of the intended correct response (derived from the task instructions and stimulus evaluation) and an efference copy of the actual motor command being dispatched to the muscles (derived from primary and premotor motor cortices). The comparator computes the mathematical vector difference between these two signals. When the difference is zero (correct trials), little or no negativity is elicited; when an error occurs, the vector mismatch generates the Ne/ERN. In this framework, the Lateralized Readiness Potential serves as the direct electrophysiological manifestation of the motor command feeding into the comparator.

In contrast, the Conflict Monitoring Hypothesis, formulated in the late 1990s and early 2000s by Matthew Botvinick, Cameron Carter, Todd Braver, and Jonathan Cohen, proposed a radically different computational architecture. They argued that the monitoring apparatus—localized within the anterior cingulate cortex—does not possess explicit knowledge of what is “correct” or “incorrect.” Instead, it acts as a passive detector of computational *energy conflict*, defined as the simultaneous, co-activation of competing, mutually incompatible motor channels (Hopfield-style energy contention). Under this model, the Ne/ERN does not index an error per se, but rather the acute spike in motor conflict that occurs immediately after an error is committed, when the correct motor command (belatedly triggered by full stimulus evaluation) collides with the ongoing incorrect command.

Both Falkenstein and Gehring engaged deeply with this debate, executing sophisticated empirical studies regressing simultaneous LRP amplitudes against Ne/ERN magnitudes. Their findings demonstrated that while motor conflict certainly exists—as proven by LRP co-activation—conflict alone cannot account for the full morphology and behavioral consequences of the Ne/ERN. Specifically, they highlighted that high-conflict correct trials elicit only minute frontocentral negativities (CRNs), whereas overt errors elicit massive deflections even when the incorrect command has completely ceased firing. This sustained empirical defense preserved the centrality of comparative, goal-directed cybernetic monitoring in human executive function.

6. Stimulus-Response Compatibility and the Eriksen Flanker Paradigm

6.1 Flanker-Induced Incongruency and Motor Vector Contention

The Eriksen flanker task, developed by Barbara and Charles Eriksen in 1974, provided the premier experimental arena for both Michael Falkenstein and William Gehring to interrogate the temporal architecture of motor vector contention. The standard array consists of a central target letter or arrow flanked by laterally adjacent distractor items that are either congruent (e.g., <<<<<) or incongruent (e.g., <<><<). Incongruent arrays routinely evoke protracted reaction times, elevated error frequencies, and robust subjective conflict.

Applying the double subtraction algorithm to flanker configurations, both investigators demonstrated that incongruent flankers induce an immediate, covert activation of the motor cortex contralateral to the distractor-indicated hand. When a central right-pointing target is flanked by left-pointing distractors, the stimulus-locked LRP demonstrates an anomalous negative polarity beginning as early as 200 milliseconds post-stimulus onset, indicating that the motor cortex is preparing a left-hand execution. Only after an additional 100 to 150 milliseconds does the waveform reverse direction, climbing steeply across the zero-axis toward the correct, right-hand execution.

Falkenstein and Gehring independently demonstrated that the physical spacing between the central target and the flanking items systematically modulates this covert motor vector contention. Expanding the visual angle between target and distractors attenuates the amplitude of the initial incorrect LRP deflection and accelerates the onset of the correct lateralization. These findings verified that spatial visual attention acts as a dynamic spatial filter that gates the rate at which distractor information can penetrate the central motor channel. When distractors fall within the primary attentional spotlight, their capacity to directly prime corticospinal motor vectors is virtually uninhibited by top-down executive control during the initial feedforward sweep of visual processing.

6.2 The Simon Effect and Spatial Coordinate Interference

While the flanker task manipulates symbolic or semantic compatibility, the Simon task (discovered by J. Richard Simon in 1969) manipulates purely spatial coordinate interference. In a classic Simon design, an imperative stimulus requires a non-spatial feature discrimination (e.g., pitch of a tone, color of a shape) mapped arbitrarily to a left or right manual response. However, the stimulus is presented physically to the left or right hemispace. Even though the spatial location of the stimulus is completely task-irrelevant, reaction times are substantially faster when the stimulus location corresponds to the response hand (spatially congruent) than when it appears on the opposite side (spatially incongruent).

Michael Falkenstein made profound contributions to unraveling the neurophysiology of the Simon effect. By utilizing the LRP, Falkenstein proved that the Simon effect is governed by a dual-route architecture of action selection. The direct, unconditional route automatically maps the spatial coordinates of the sensory input directly to the corresponding hemispheric motor cortex via hardwired, evolutionary visuomotor pathways. The indirect, conditional route executes the deliberate, rule-based mapping of the stimulus feature (e.g., color) to the designated motor effector.

Falkenstein’s LRP traces provided direct visualization of this dual-route collision. On incongruent Simon trials, the LRP demonstrates an immediate, automatic deflection toward the side of the stimulus location, completely ignoring the task rule. This automatic priming peaks approximately 220 to 260 ms post-stimulus. Subsequently, active executive suppression terminates this initial vector, allowing the slower, rule-based indirect route to emerge and steer the LRP toward the correct hand. Falkenstein’s chronometric analyses demonstrated that the magnitude of the behavioral Simon cost is almost entirely explained by the temporal duration required to abort this automatic LRP deflection and reconfigure the lateralized motor command.

6.3 Subliminal Priming and Covert Motor Preparation

The exploration of motor channel dynamics reached its ultimate theoretical boundary with the application of the LRP to subliminal, masked priming paradigms. Can sensory stimuli that are utterly invisible to conscious subjective awareness directly prime, lateralize, and activate the human motor cortex? Work by Gehring, alongside contemporary investigators such as Rolf Verleger, Ulrich Ansorge, and Thomas Vorberg, provided an unambiguous affirmative answer.

In masked priming configurations, an imperative prime arrow or target is presented for a fleeting duration (e.g., 16 to 33 milliseconds) and immediately enveloped by a high-contrast visual metacontrast mask, rendering the prime completely undetectable in forced-choice perceptual discrimination tests. Despite this total absence of conscious perception, when the double subtraction algorithm is applied to the EEG epochs, the scalp reveals a pristine, statistically robust Lateralized Readiness Potential running toward the hand indicated by the invisible prime. The human motor cortex prepares an overt motor execution entirely outside subjective conscious volition.

Gehring and colleagues examined the profound executive control limits exposed by these subliminal LRP deflections. Their research demonstrated that if the interval between the masked prime and the conscious target is short, the subliminal motor priming facilitates congruent responses and severely impairs incongruent responses. However, if the stimulus-onset asynchrony is extended beyond 100 milliseconds, an automatic inhibitory rebound occurs, wherein the initial subliminal LRP reverses polarity—a phenomenon known as the negative compatibility effect (NCE). Gehring’s investigations illuminated how subcortical-cortical loops automatically enact motor suppression against obsolete sensory inputs, establishing that the architecture of human motor control is deeply stratified, with layers of covert preparation operating completely beneath the canopy of conscious awareness.

7. Neuroanatomical and Neurophysiological Substrates

7.1 Cortical Generators of the Lateralized Readiness Potential

Establishing the precise neuroanatomical sources of the scalp-recorded Lateralized Readiness Potential was essential to substantiate its validity as an unvarnished index of motor programming. Through decades of intracranial electrocorticography (ECoG), magnetoencephalography (MEG), and advanced dipole source localization models, researchers have mapped the primary generators of the LRP to the primary motor cortex (M1, Brodmann Area 4), with substantial modulatory contributions from the supplementary motor area (SMA proper, Brodmann Area 6) and the dorsal premotor cortex (PMd).

The classical Bereitschaftspotential originates bilaterally in the medial SMA and pre-SMA, which project diffusely to precentral motor regions. However, the double subtraction algorithm mathematically strips away these medial, bilateral activations due to their spatial symmetry across the sagittal midline. The residual lateralized vector isolates the pyramidal cell assemblies residing in layer V of the precentral gyrus along the anterior bank of the central sulcus—the classic somatotopic hand representation (the “hand knob” of M1). Intracranial recordings in presurgical epileptic patients performed by Ikeda, Lüders, and colleagues definitively verified that local field potentials corresponding precisely to the morphology of the scalp LRP emerge within M1 precisely 150 to 200 milliseconds prior to contralateral finger movement.

Source modeling of high-density EEG configurations has further established that the electrical dipole generated by M1 hand activation is oriented obliquely, pointing anteriorly and medially toward the central scalp. Because of the complex, convoluted geometry of the central sulcus, adjacent activations within premotor cortex (PMd) and primary somatosensory cortex (Area 3b, contributing kinesthetic reafference) interact with this vector. Nonetheless, when carefully recorded at C3 and C4 coordinates, the dominant dipole source of the LRP remains firmly anchored within the contralateral primary motor neocortex.

7.2 The Anterior Midcingulate Cortex and Action Monitoring Circuits

While the LRP emanates from lateral precentral motor cortices, the Error-Related Negativity discovered by Falkenstein and Gehring is generated within the medial frontal cortex, specifically the anterior midcingulate cortex (aMCC), traditionally subsumed under the neuroanatomical label of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC, Brodmann Area 24/32).

The anatomical and functional connectivity linking the aMCC/dACC to the primary motor channels constitutes one of the most sophisticated cybernetic control circuits in the mammalian brain. The aMCC occupies a unique structural position: it receives massive, rich afferent projections from the midbrain dopamine system (ventral tegmental area and substantia nigra), the basolateral amygdala, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), while simultaneously sending direct, dense corticospinal efferent projections down to the spinal cord and monosynaptic motor projections directly into the hand area of M1. This positioning establishes the aMCC as the supreme arbiter of action control.

In the framework developed by Gehring and Falkenstein, the aMCC operates as the physical seat of the efference copy comparator. When M1 dispatches a lateralized corticospinal volley (indexed by the LRP), a collateral burst travels via internal capsular and striatal-thalamic collaterals into the aMCC. Simultaneously, the dlPFC maintains the active task representation and behavioral goal. When the aMCC detects a mismatch between these vectors, it generates a sharp negative local field potential driven by the synchronized opening of apical dendritic channels in pyramidal neurons. Furthermore, this computational event triggers aphasic dopaminergic dips that interrupt ongoing basal ganglia loops, resetting motor thresholds and instantly deploying a compensatory inhibitory command back to M1 to arrest the erroneous action.

7.3 Basal Ganglia and Frontostriatal Loops in Response Lateralization

The execution and lateralization of motor readiness do not occur in an isolated cortical vacuum; they are profoundly sculpted by subcortical circuitry, specifically the parallel frontostriatal loops linking the cerebral cortex, the striatum, the globus pallidus, the subthalamic nucleus (STN), and the thalamus.

Under baseline resting conditions, the basal ganglia exercise tonic, high-frequency GABAergic inhibition over the ventral lateral and ventral anterior motor nuclei of the thalamus, effectively locking the motor execution gates. Cortical motor readiness—the phenomenon traced by the LRP—requires selective disinhibition of this thalamocortical pathway. When an agent decides to execute a right-hand movement, cortical commands project to the striatum (caudate and putamen), engaging the direct pathway (expressing D1 dopamine receptors). The direct pathway inhibits the internal segment of the globus pallidus (GPi) and substantia nigra pars reticulata (SNr), which in turn relieves the tonic brake on the contralateral motor thalamus, allowing a ballistic burst of excitation to ascend into M1 and trigger the descending corticospinal motor command.

Crucially, motor competition and inhibitory control rely on two complementary basal ganglia circuits:

• The Indirect Pathway: Involving the external globus pallidus (GPe) and striatal neurons expressing D2 dopamine receptors, this pathway selectively reinforces thalamic inhibition, suppressing competing motor channels (such as the unchosen hand) to prevent motor cross-talk.
• The Hyperdirect Pathway: Originating directly from the pre-supplementary motor area, inferior frontal cortex, and aMCC, this monosynaptic pathway bypasses the striatum entirely, projecting directly to the subthalamic nucleus (STN). Activation of the hyperdirect pathway excites the GPi/SNr complex within mere milliseconds, delivering a rapid, global inhibitory “emergency brake” across the entire motor thalamus.

The LRP provides an exquisite electrophysiological readout of these frontostriatal mechanics. The initial, slow rise of the LRP reflects the gradual striatal gating of the thalamocortical loop. If motor conflict or a premature error is detected, the rapid activation of the hyperdirect pathway via the aMCC/STN axis instantly arrests the rising LRP waveform, manifesting on the scalp as the abrupt flattening, dip, or reversal of the lateralized motor vector.

8. Inhibition, Task-Switching, and the Go/No-Go Paradigm

8.1 Motor Cancellation and the Stop-Signal Paradigm

The temporal dynamics of motor cancellation represent the ultimate proving ground for models of executive control. The premier behavioral model for interrogating action cancellation is the stop-signal paradigm, formalized conceptually by Gordon Logan and William Cowan in their classic “horse-race model.” In this task, participants perform a primary choice reaction time task, but on an unpredictable subset of trials, an imperative auditory or visual stop-signal appears after a variable stop-signal delay (SSD), commanding the participant to abort the initiated response completely.

The critical behavioral metric derived from this architecture is the Stop-Signal Reaction Time (SSRT)—the internal, unobservable time required by the brain to process the stop-signal and successfully cancel the motor command. William Gehring and Michael Falkenstein independently realized that the Lateralized Readiness Potential could render the invisible race of the Logan model visible. By tracking the S-LRP and R-LRP on successful stop trials versus failed stop trials, researchers could directly observe the internal competition between the go-runner and the stop-runner.

These investigations demonstrated that on successful stop trials, an S-LRP frequently begins to rise normally toward the imperative response hand, indicating that motor preparation was genuinely deployed. However, upon the arrival of the stop-signal, the LRP trajectory is abruptly truncated, plateauing and decaying back to baseline before reaching the threshold of peripheral EMG execution. Conversely, on failed stop trials, the LRP exhibits a steeper initial slope and crosses a decisive point of no return approximately 50 to 80 milliseconds prior to EMG onset. Beyond this physiological threshold, corticospinal synchronization is so advanced that central inhibitory mechanisms can no longer prevent peripheral muscular contraction, triggering a failed stop and eliciting an immediate, massive ERN/Ne.

8.2 Go/No-Go Paradigms and Partial Activation Dynamics

While the stop-signal task tests the emergency cancellation of an already initiated ballistic action, the Go/No-Go paradigm evaluates selective response withholding. In a typical design, participants must execute a speeded motor response to high-frequency “Go” stimuli, but strictly withhold their response to low-frequency “No-Go” stimuli. Because Go trials dominate, the cognitive system develops a potent, chronic preparatory set toward immediate motor execution.

Michael Falkenstein conducted foundational electrophysiological investigations dissecting the neurocognitive taxonomy of No-Go processing. Prior to his work, the dominant electrophysiological marker of inhibition was the No-Go P3—a massive, frontocentral positivity peaking between 300 and 500 ms on withheld trials. Falkenstein demonstrated that the No-Go P3 is preceded by a distinct No-Go N2 component, and he utilized the LRP to systematically separate motor execution suppression from high-level cognitive classification.

Falkenstein showed that on No-Go trials featuring high Go probability, the scalp reveals a partial LRP deflection toward the Go response hand. The motor system, heavily biased by top-down expectations, primes the corticospinal channel before the discriminative sensory features of the No-Go stimulus have been fully evaluated. When the stimulus is categorized as a No-Go item, central inhibitory mechanisms intervene to arrest the command. Falkenstein demonstrated that this inhibition operates at two distinct neuroanatomical levels: a central premotor cancellation stage that halts the rising LRP, and a peripheral, corticospinal suppression stage that actively increases motor neuron thresholds in the spinal cord, preventing sub-threshold cortical LRP commands from triggering overt electromyographic discharges.

8.3 Task-Switching Costs and Reconfiguration Latencies

In modern cognitive environments, humans rarely perform invariant, isolated motor actions; rather, they must flexibly switch between competing task sets. The task-switching paradigm, pioneered by Donald Rogers, David Monsell, and Nachshon Meiran, measures the cognitive penalty incurred when changing behavioral rules: switching tasks produces substantial increases in reaction time and error rates (switch costs) relative to task repetitions.

A core theoretical debate in cognitive psychology centered on the internal locus of this switch cost: does the delay reflect the time required for the central executive to reconfigure its abstract mental set (endogenous task-set reconfiguration), or does it stem from lingering proactive interference from the previously executed response rules (task-set inertia)? William Gehring and contemporary electrophysiologists addressed this puzzle by mapping the exact onset latencies of the stimulus-locked LRP during switch and repeat trials.

Their findings revealed that task switching selectively delays the onset of the S-LRP by an interval that precisely mirrors the macroscopic behavioral switch cost, while the response-locked LRP (R-LRP) duration remains entirely invariant across switch and repeat trials. This provided definitive proof that task switching does not impair peripheral motor execution, nor does it prolong motor programming. Rather, the entire cognitive cost of task-set reconfiguration is absorbed during the pre-motoric window: the executive system must fully resolve rule conflict and suppress the previous stimulus-response mappings before it can begin to channel lateralized electrical vectors into the primary motor cortex.

9. Lifespan Trajectories: Aging, Development, and Neuroplasticity

9.1 Michael Falkenstein’s Pioneering Lifespan and Aging Studies

Beginning in the late 1990s and continuing across several decades, Michael Falkenstein spearheaded an internationally renowned research program dedicated to understanding the neurocognitive consequences of healthy human aging. As human beings age, their behavioral reaction times exhibit universal, marked slowing across virtually all cognitive and motor domains. However, traditional behavioral metrics could not resolve whether this senescent slowing was driven by sensory decline, sluggish central decision-making, executive monitoring breakdown, or peripheral neuromuscular degradation.

Falkenstein leveraged the Lateralized Readiness Potential to decompose age-related slowing into its constituent chronometric compartments. In a series of seminal investigations (e.g., Falkenstein et al., 2006; Yordanova, Kolev, Hohnsbein, & Falkenstein, 2004), Falkenstein proved that the duration of the response-locked LRP (the interval between motor cortex lateralization and peripheral EMG execution) is remarkably preserved in healthy older adults. The physical execution speed of the primary motor cortex and corticospinal tract remains largely intact across the healthy lifespan.

Instead, Falkenstein discovered that senescent slowing is overwhelmingly localized within the premotor S-LRP interval: older adults require substantially more time to evaluate complex stimuli and select the appropriate motor channel. Furthermore, Falkenstein revealed that older adults exhibit profound compensatory neural reorganization, characterized by the bilateral recruitment of motor and prefrontal cortices during tasks where young adults utilize strictly lateralized, unilateral activations (aligning with the Hemispheric Asymmetry Reduction in Older Adults, or HAROLD model). However, Falkenstein also uncovered a critical vulnerability: the Error-Related Negativity (Ne/ERN) undergoes dramatic, age-related amplitude attenuation. Older adults demonstrate a blunted internal action monitoring signal, which directly explains their documented difficulties in rapidly adapting behavioral strategies following performance errors.

9.2 Developmental Trajectories of Action Preparation in Children and Adolescents

Complementing Falkenstein’s geriatric investigations, William Gehring turned his empirical focus toward the opposite pole of the lifespan: the neurocognitive development of action control, error detection, and executive gating from early childhood through adolescence and into emerging adulthood.

The human brain undergoes massive structural transformations across childhood, characterized by protracted synaptic pruning in the prefrontal cortex and progressive, progressive myelination of the lateral corticospinal tracts and corpus callosum. Gehring and his research team utilized the LRP and the ERN to track how these structural milestones translate into functional motor control. In young children (ages 5 to 10), the LRP exhibits significantly shallower slopes, prolonged onset latencies, and high trial-to-trial latency jitter, reflecting the immature, unmyelinated state of the corticospinal system.

Gehring’s developmental studies (e.g., Davies, Segalowitz, & Gehring, 2004) revealed striking insights into the maturation of inhibitory control. In flanker tasks, children display massive, protracted incorrect LRP deflections driven by incongruent distractors, proving that the pediatric prefrontal cortex possesses an immature, porous inhibitory gate that permits task-irrelevant environmental noise to penetrate deep into primary motor channels. Furthermore, Gehring showed that the ERN is remarkably small or even absent in early childhood, emerging robustly only during late childhood and undergoing steep morphological amplification across puberty into early adulthood. This developmental trajectory proved that the internal efference copy comparator system is among the slowest-maturing executive faculties in human ontogeny, correlating directly with the emergence of mature behavioral self-regulation and impulse control.

9.3 Cognitive Interventions, Training, and Neuroplastic Adaptation

The empirical findings generated by Falkenstein across aging cohorts inevitably propelled him into the translational domain of cognitive ergonomics, physical training, and neuroplastic interventions. If central premotor transmission slows and error monitoring blunts across the lifespan, can targeted neuroplastic interventions arrest or reverse these neurobiological declines?

At the Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors (IfADo), Falkenstein executed large-scale, longitudinal intervention trials evaluating the efficacy of computer-based cognitive training and physical cardiovascular/coordination exercise in aging corporate and industrial workforces. Falkenstein demonstrated that intensive, multi-modal cognitive training induces measurable neuroplastic alterations visible in the LRP and ERP waveforms. Specifically, older adults who completed sustained executive function training displayed significant statistical reductions in S-LRP onset latencies, demonstrating enhanced efficiency in stimulus-response mapping.

Simultaneously, Falkenstein documented that physical cardiovascular training produces a robust restoration of Ne/ERN amplitudes in older adults. By improving cerebrovascular perfusion and up-regulating neurotrophic factors (such as Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor, BDNF) within the anterior midcingulate cortex, physical exercise revitalizes the neurochemical systems that power the efference copy comparator. These applied findings cemented Falkenstein’s legacy not merely as a master of pure electrophysiology, but as a pioneer of translational neuroergonomics, demonstrating that the functional parameters of the human motor readiness system remain plastic and modifiable even into advanced senescence.

10. Clinical Applications and Neuropathological Profiles

10.1 Parkinson’s Disease and Basal Ganglia Dysfunction

Because the Lateralized Readiness Potential directly indexes the final cortical stages of motor preparation, it serves as an exquisitely sensitive probe for interrogating neurodegenerative movement disorders, chief among them Parkinson’s disease (PD). Pathologically characterized by the degeneration of dopaminergic neurons within the substantia nigra pars compacta, Parkinson’s disease disrupts the delicate balance of the direct, indirect, and hyperdirect frontostriatal pathways, culminating in profound akinesia, bradykinesia, rigidity, and resting tremor.

Electrophysiological investigations utilizing the LRP in Parkinsonian patients reveal profound, systematic abnormalities. In classic choice reaction time designs, patients with Parkinson’s disease display severely prolonged S-LRP and R-LRP durations, accompanied by a substantial flattening of the rising readiness slope. The striatum’s inability to disinhibit the motor thalamus prevents the rapid, synchronized recruitment of layer V pyramidal neurons in M1, manifesting as a sluggish, impaired motor preparation trajectory.

Crucially, the LRP has been utilized to evaluate the precise therapeutic mechanisms of dopaminergic pharmacotherapy (L-DOPA) and surgical Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation (STN-DBS). Administration of L-DOPA substantially normalizes S-LRP onset latencies and steepens the R-LRP slope, proving that dopamine restores the speed of central motor channel selection. Conversely, researchers have shown that high-frequency STN-DBS selectively modulates the braking threshold: while it alleviates motor akinesia, it can induce severe impulsive action by disabling the hyperdirect global brake. In flanker tasks, DBS-stimulated Parkinsonian patients frequently exhibit unchecked, high-amplitude incorrect LRP deflections that break through into overt commission errors, illustrating the delicate homeostatic balance governing basal ganglia motor gating.

10.2 Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Hyperactive Action Monitoring

In 2000, William Gehring, alongside contemporary clinical collaborators, published a landmark, paradigm-shifting clinical investigation in the Archives of General Psychiatry (Gehring, Himle, & Nisenson, 2000), linking the neurobiology of action monitoring directly to the etiology of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD).

OCD is a debilitating psychiatric condition characterized by recurrent, intrusive thoughts (obsessions) and repetitive, stereotyped mental or physical behaviors (compulsions), typically centering on contamination, checking, or catastrophic doubt. Gehring hypothesized that OCD is fundamentally a disease of a hyperactive action monitoring system. Utilizing the Eriksen flanker paradigm in unmedicated OCD patients, Gehring documented that individuals with OCD display massively exaggerated, hyper-amplitude Error-Related Negativities relative to healthy control participants. The internal efference copy comparator in an OCD patient operates with pathological, hypersensitive gain, constantly signaling a severe, alarming discrepancy between intended action and actual performance—the subjective feeling that “something is terribly wrong.”

Simultaneously, Gehring examined the Lateralized Readiness Potential in these patients, uncovering abnormal compensatory motor threshold dynamics. Even on mundane, simple choice trials, patients with OCD maintain abnormally high motor activation thresholds, requiring extensive central evidence accumulation before allowing the LRP to lateralize. When an error is committed, their LRP exhibits extreme, hyper-reactive remedial braking. Gehring revealed a direct, positive correlation between the amplitude of this hyperactive ERN/LRP complex and the subjective clinical severity of the patient’s obsessive-compulsive checking symptoms on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS), establishing the ERN as a primary neurophysiological endophenotype in biological psychiatry.

10.3 Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

If Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder represents a pathological hyper-tuning of the action monitoring and motor preparation apparatus, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) occupies the exact opposite pathophysiological pole. Characterized by chronic inattention, executive disinhibition, and profound motor impulsivity, ADHD presents pervasive breakdowns in real-time behavioral self-regulation.

Michael Falkenstein and his European colleagues conducted comprehensive psychophysiological investigations comparing pediatric and adult ADHD cohorts against neurotypical controls. Utilizing the LRP in Go/No-Go and flanker paradigms, Falkenstein showed that individuals with ADHD suffer from severe deficits in premature motor suppression. When presented with incongruent flankers or high-probability No-Go cues, individuals with ADHD exhibit massive, unchecked initial LRP deflections toward the incorrect motor effector. Their frontostriatal gating architecture is chronically porous, permitting task-irrelevant visual information to repeatedly trigger corticospinal volleys.

Furthermore, Falkenstein documented that this premature motor activation is accompanied by a severe, statistically robust attenuation of the Error-Related Negativity (Ne/ERN). The internal comparator fails to generate a robust error detection signal at the moment of motor commission, leading to a marked absence of normative post-error slowing. Crucially, Falkenstein demonstrated that administration of psychostimulant medication (such as methylphenidate, which blocks dopamine and norepinephrine transporters) directly normalizes these electrophysiological profiles: methylphenidate steepens the correct LRP slope, suppresses premature covert motor activations, and dramatically restores Ne/ERN amplitudes, proving that frontostriatal catecholaminergic tone is the indispensable engine powering executive motor control.

10.4 Affective Disorders, Anxiety, and Psychopathology

The methodologies developed by Falkenstein and Gehring have expanded deeply into the broader taxonomy of psychiatric and affective disorders, providing objective electrophysiological biomarkers for internalizing and externalizing psychopathologies:

• Anxious Apprehension and Generalized Anxiety: Extensive research following Gehring’s paradigms has established that high trait anxiety and anxious apprehension selectively amplify the ERN/Ne. Anxious individuals maintain hyper-vigilant cognitive control networks that over-monitor performance, resulting in heightened remedial braking and rigid, protracted LRP latencies during ambiguous choice conditions.
• Major Depressive Disorder (MDD): Depression is characterized by psychomotor poverty, anhedonia, and blunted motivational drive. Electrophysiological dissections utilizing the LRP successfully dissociate motivational-decisional deficits from true motor execution impairment: depressed patients display severe prolongations of the stimulus-locked S-LRP interval (cognitive indecision), while the response-locked R-LRP interval remains entirely normal. Furthermore, depression is marked by a blunted feedback-related negativity (FRN) and attenuated ERN, reflecting dopamine depletion within reward and action-monitoring circuits.
• Substance Use Disorders and Externalizing Traits: Chronic addiction, psychopathy, and antisocial personality traits are characterized by profound behavioral disinhibition. These clinical cohorts consistently display severely attenuated Ne/ERN waveforms and unrestrained, high-amplitude premature LRP activations, signifying a fundamental failure of the anterior midcingulate cortex to brake impulsive motor commands.

These diverse clinical applications underscore the transformative legacy of Falkenstein’s and Gehring’s work: by bridging microscopic scalp potentials with macroscopic psychopathology, the LRP and ERN have become gold-standard intermediate endophenotypes within the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework.

11. Epistemological Debates, Methodological Challenges, and Resolutive Paradigms

11.1 The Smearing Effect and Single-Trial Latency Variability

Despite its profound analytical power, the Lateralized Readiness Potential has faced rigorous epistemological and methodological critiques throughout its history. Chief among these mathematical challenges is the notorious smearing effect induced by single-trial latency variability (jitter). When electrophysiologists compute a grand-average event-related potential across hundreds of experimental trials, they operate under the mathematical assumption that the underlying physiological waveform is invariant in latency and morphology, with background EEG noise behaving as zero-mean Gaussian white noise.

In reality, human cognitive processing is inherently non-stationary. The latency of the LRP fluctuates considerably from trial to trial based on fluctuating vigilance, mind wandering, and autonomic arousal. When waveforms with variable onset latencies are arithmetically averaged together, the resulting grand-average waveform undergoes severe low-pass temporal smearing: the rising slope appears artificially shallow, and the true physiological onset latency is distorted, appearing deceptively early. Opponents argued that the early “LRP dips” observed in flanker and Simon tasks might simply represent mathematical artifacts of temporal smearing over disparate sub-populations of trials.

Both Michael Falkenstein and William Gehring addressed these criticisms with methodological ingenuity. They pioneered the integration of advanced mathematical deconvolution algorithms, single-trial maximum likelihood estimation, and sorting paradigms. By sorting single trials contingent upon overt reaction time or single-trial EMG onset, they proved that the early LRP deflections and polarity reversals persist robustly across distinct latency quintiles. Furthermore, the modern integration of continuous wavelet transforms (CWT) and matching pursuit algorithms has confirmed that the LRP represents an authentic, continuous phase synchronization of motor cortex neuronal pools rather than an artifact of mathematical aggregation.

11.2 Volume Conduction, Dipole Cancellation, and Geometric Limitations

A second foundational challenge in LRP research stems from the physical physics of electroencephalography: volume conduction and dipole cancellation within the convoluted geometry of the cerebral cortex. Scalp electrodes do not record intracellular currents directly; they record the spatial summation of extracellular field potentials conducted passively through cerebrospinal fluid, the meninges, the skull, and the scalp tissue.

Because the primary motor cortex (M1) lies largely buried within the anterior bank of the central sulcus, while the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) lies in the posterior bank directly opposite, their respective pyramidal cell assemblies form opposing dipoles whose electrical fields can partially cancel each other out. Moreover, spatial volume conduction causes electrical potentials generated in adjacent frontal or parietal regions to propagate laterally across the scalp, potentially contaminating the C3 and C4 electrodes with non-motor signals.

To overcome these physical limitations, contemporary researchers, drawing on early recommendations by Falkenstein and Hoormann, increasingly employ Current Source Density (CSD) estimation and surface Laplacian transformations. The surface Laplacian acts as a high-pass spatial filter, computing the second spatial derivative of the scalp surface potentials. This mathematical operation effectively filters out spatially diffuse, volume-conducted background potentials emanating from deep or distant structures, isolating local cortical current generators with sub-centimeter spatial precision. Surface Laplacian LRP derivations have unambiguously confirmed that the double subtraction waveform recorded at C3 and C4 reflects pure, localized cortical sinks originating directly from the precentral hand representation.

11.3 Cross-Talk and Task Asymmetries in Double Subtraction Validity

The foundational mathematical axiom of the double subtraction algorithm is the assumption of hemispheric symmetry. The Coles and de Jong formula mathematically presumes that the neural mass, skull impedance, dipole orientation, and preparatory motor kinetics of the left hemisphere during right-hand preparation are identical and symmetric to those of the right hemisphere during left-hand preparation.

In biological reality, human beings exhibit pervasive motor and anatomical asymmetries. The overwhelming majority of the human population is strongly right-handed, exhibiting greater motor cortex gray matter volume, higher corticospinal excitability, and richer intra-cortical connectivity in the left dominant hemisphere. Consequently, in right-handed individuals, right-hand motor preparation typically elicits larger, steeper contralateral negativities over C3 than left-hand preparation does over C4. If unaddressed, this intrinsic neurobiological asymmetry introduces an offset bias into the baseline of the LRP, potentially simulating spurious directional shifts.

Furthermore, stimulus-hand interactions present a profound confounding threat. If an experimental design presents stimuli that possess intrinsic spatial or linguistic features that selectively activate one hemisphere (e.g., verbal stimuli processed preferentially in the left hemisphere), the double subtraction baseline can become corrupted. Methodologists have resolved these challenges through rigorous counterbalancing protocols, alternating hand-mapping blocks, and the implementation of refined algebraic models that calculate separate baseline normalization coefficients for the dominant versus non-dominant hemispheres, guaranteeing the mathematical purity of the derived lateralized vector.

12. Contemporary Horizons and Future Directions in Motor Electrophysiology

12.1 Simultaneous EEG-fMRI and High-Density Source Reconstruction

As cognitive neuroscience advanced into the twenty-first century, the paradigms established by Michael Falkenstein and William Gehring were augmented by multimodal neuroimaging technologies, most notably simultaneous EEG-fMRI and high-density (128- to 256-channel) electrical source imaging (ESI).

While the LRP provided millisecond temporal resolution, its spatial resolution was historically bounded by the sparse C3/C4 montage. Simultaneous EEG-fMRI recordings conquered this trade-off, enabling neuroscientists to capture the exact millisecond onset of the LRP and the peak of the ERN/Ne while simultaneously recording whole-brain blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) hemodynamics at millimeter spatial clarity. These investigations have definitively validated the dual-system architecture championed by Gehring and Falkenstein: single-trial LRP slope amplitudes correlate directly with BOLD signal increases within the contralateral precentral gyrus, supplementary motor area, and the putamen, while the amplitude of the ERN/Ne selectively predicts BOLD activation within the anterior midcingulate cortex (aMCC) and anterior insula.

Overcoming the formidable technical challenges of simultaneous multimodal recording—specifically the elimination of massive, heartbeat-induced cardioballistic artifacts and magnetic gradient switching noise—has enabled researchers to observe the functional dialogue between the aMCC and M1 with unprecedented fidelity. These systems confirm that the aMCC directly modulates the functional connectivity between the basal ganglia and primary motor cortex, validating the cybernetic action monitoring architecture formulated decades earlier.

12.2 Time-Frequency Dynamics: Mu and Beta Event-Related Desynchronization

A profound evolution in modern electrophysiology is the paradigm shift from traditional, time-domain phase-locked averaging (ERPs) toward time-frequency spectral decomposition. The human motor cortex is governed by powerful, endogenous oscillatory rhythms: the sensorimotor mu rhythm (8-12 Hz) and beta rhythm (15-30 Hz).

Under resting conditions, the motor cortex maintains robust, synchronized beta oscillations, signaling active motor maintenance and postural holding (the “status quo” state). When an individual prepares to execute a voluntary movement, these rhythms undergo dramatic, localized event-related desynchronization (ERD) over the contralateral motor cortex, followed by a post-movement event-related synchronization (ERS) or “beta rebound.” The Lateralized Readiness Potential is intimately bound to these oscillatory dynamics: the slow negative DC shift of the LRP represents the slow-wave envelope of contralateral mu and beta desynchronization.

Applying time-frequency analysis to the classic paradigms of Falkenstein and Gehring has yielded profound insights:

• Midfrontal Theta Oscillations: The Error-Related Negativity is now widely recognized as the phase-locked manifestation of a broader burst of non-phase-locked midfrontal theta oscillations (4-8 Hz) centered over the anterior cingulate cortex. Whenever motor conflict, error commission, or unexpected feedback occurs, the aMCC fires an intense theta volley.
• Cross-Frequency Phase-Amplitude Coupling: Groundbreaking research demonstrates that the phase of midfrontal theta waves directly modulates the amplitude of high-gamma and beta bursts within the primary motor cortex. When an error is committed, midfrontal theta phase-couples with motor cortex beta desynchronization, physically executing the rapid remedial brake and resetting the lateralized motor threshold.

This oscillatory synthesis has not supplanted the classical LRP; rather, it has enriched it, providing a biophysical bridge between macroscopic event-related potentials and the rhythmic, firing dynamics of cortical local field networks.

12.3 Translational Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI) and Neuroergonomics

The practical legacy of Michael Falkenstein’s and William Gehring’s formulations is flourishing within the cutting-edge technological frontier of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI) and neuroergonomics. In clinical neuroengineering, paralyzed patients suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), brainstem stroke, or high-level spinal cord injury require assistive systems that decode motor intentions directly from the brain.

The Lateralized Readiness Potential serves as the supreme biological control signal for non-invasive, predictive BCIs. Because the LRP emerges hundreds of milliseconds prior to intended movement, machine learning classifiers (such as support vector machines, Riemannian geometry, and convolutional neural networks) can be trained to decode single-trial LRP vectors in real time. These predictive algorithms detect the user’s intent to move a robotic prosthetic limb or digital cursor *before* any peripheral execution is attempted, slashing latency and producing fluid, naturalistic control. Furthermore, BCIs utilize Gehring’s ERN as an automated, non-invasive “undo” command: if the BCI system misinterprets the user’s intention and moves the prosthetic in the wrong direction, the user’s brain automatically generates an ERN, which the machine learning algorithm decodes within 100 milliseconds to instantly cancel the erroneous trajectory.

Simultaneously, in the domain of occupational neuroergonomics—the field Falkenstein profoundly shaped at the Dortmund Institute—the LRP and ERN are deployed to monitor cognitive fatigue, mental workload, and executive lapses in high-risk, safety-critical environments. Real-time EEG monitoring systems in aviation, high-speed rail operation, and industrial automation utilize wireless, wearable EEG sensors to track LRP slopes and error potentials. When a pilot or operator experiences severe cognitive exhaustion, the S-LRP onset latency protracts, LRP slopes flatten, and the ERN blunts, indicating that the frontostriatal action monitoring system has deteriorated. Automated safety systems detect these electrophysiological shifts, dynamically intervening to avert catastrophic human error.

Conclusion

The scientific odyssey traced through the work of Michael Falkenstein and William Gehring represents a triumph of modern cognitive neuroscience. Prior to their transformative investigations, the human motor system was predominantly viewed as an unthinking, passive execution arm of the cerebral cortex—a mere conduit designed to discharge the instructions of high-level decisional faculties. Through the rigorous mathematical development of the Lateralized Readiness Potential and the simultaneous discovery of the Error-Related Negativity (Fehlernegativität), Falkenstein and Gehring permanently shattered this simplistic doctrine.

Their research proved that the human motor architecture is deeply cognitive, profoundly competitive, and exquisitely self-regulating. By tracking the millisecond-by-millisecond trajectories of the LRP across choice reaction time tasks, flanker arrays, spatial compatibility configurations, and clinical cohorts, they revealed that motor channels are engaged continuously, running parallel races below the threshold of consciousness. They demonstrated that human errors are not simply failures of intellect, but the dynamic byproducts of premature motor activations that the brain detects and attempts to remediate virtually the instant the command breaches cortical boundaries.

From Falkenstein’s meticulous deconstruction of sensory bottlenecks, spatial conflict, and the cognitive trajectory of healthy human aging at the Dortmund Institute, to Gehring’s computational modeling of cybernetic monitoring, efference copies, and the hyperactive action systems of obsessive-compulsive disorder at the University of Michigan, their contributions established the empirical architecture that unifies modern cognitive chronometry, neurophysiology, and biological psychiatry. Today, as their paradigms expand into simultaneous multimodal neuroimaging, time-frequency oscillatory mechanics, predictive neuroprosthetic brain-computer interfaces, and translational neuroergonomics, the foundational discoveries of Michael Falkenstein and William Gehring remain indelible cornerstones in our enduring quest to decode the intricate electrophysiology of the human mind.

References

• Botvinick, M. M., Carter, C. S., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Evaluating the conflict hypothesis: Further thoughts. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(1), 10-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01570-4
• Coles, M. G. H. (1989). Modern mind-brain reading: Psychophysiology, physiology, and cognition. Psychophysiology, 26(3), 251-269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1989.tb01916.x
• Coles, M. G. H., Gratton, G., & Donchin, E. (1988). Detecting early communication: Using negative surface potentials as indices of mental processing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11(3), 429-430.
• Davies, P. L., Segalowitz, S. J., & Gehring, W. J. (2004). Development of error-monitoring event-related potentials in children. Child Development, 75(1), 289-306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00670.x
• de Jong, R., Wierda, M., Mulder, G., & Mulder, L. J. (1988). Use of partial stimulus information in response processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(4), 682-692. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.14.4.682
• Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143-149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267
• Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J., Hoormann, J., & Blanke, L. (1990). Effects of errors in choice reaction tasks on the ERP under different conditions of verification. In C. H. M. Brunia, A. W. K. Gaillard, & A. Kok (Eds.), Psychophysiological Brain Research (pp. 152-156). Tilburg University Press.
• Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J., Hoormann, J., & Blanke, L. (1991). Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components. II. Error processing in choice reaction tasks. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 78(6), 447-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(91)90062-9
• Falkenstein, M., Hoormann, J., Christ, S., & Hohnsbein, J. (2000). ERP components on reaction errors and their functional significance: A tutorial. Biological Psychology, 51(2-3), 87-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(99)00031-9
• Falkenstein, M., Yordanova, J., Kolev, V., Galev, V., & Hohnsbein, J. (2006). Effects of aging on slowing of response selection and execution: An ERP study. Neurobiology of Aging, 27(4), 617-627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2005.03.008
• Gehring, W. J., Goss, B., Coles, M. G. H., Meyer, D. E., & Donchin, E. (1993). A new brain marker for on-line movement tracking. Psychological Science, 4(6), 385-390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00586.x
• Gehring, W. J., Himle, J., & Nisenson, L. G. (2000). Action-monitoring dysfunction in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychological Science, 11(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00206
• Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., Sirevaag, E. J., Eriksen, C. W., & Donchin, E. (1988). Pre- and poststimulus activation of response channels: A psychophysiological analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(3), 331-344. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.14.3.331
• Kornhuber, H. H., & Deecke, L. (1965). Hirnpotentialänderungen bei Willkürbewegungen und passiven Bewegungen des Menschen: Bereitschaftspotential und rückwärtsgerichtete Potentiale. Pflügers Archiv für die gesamte Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere, 284(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00412364
• Logan, G. D., & Cowan, W. B. (1984). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A theory of an act of control. Psychological Review, 91(3), 295-327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.295
• McClelland, J. L. (1979). On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade. Psychological Review, 86(4), 287-330. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.86.4.287
• Miller, J. (1982). Discrete versus continuous models of human information processing: In search of partial transmission. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8(2), 273-296. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.8.2.273
• Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(3), 300-304. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020586
• Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(69)90055-9
• Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2001). Using the jackknife-based scoring method for measuring LRP onset effects in factorial designs. Psychophysiology, 38(4), 577-591. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.3840577
• von Holst, E., & Mittelstaedt, H. (1950). Das Reafferenzprinzip: Wechselwirkungen zwischen Zentralnervensystem und Peripherie. Naturwissenschaften, 37(20), 464-476. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00622503
• Yordanova, J., Kolev, V., Hohnsbein, J., & Falkenstein, M. (2004). Sensorimotor slowing with ageing is mediated by a delay in motor execution: Evidence from high-resolution event-related potentials. Brain, 127(2), 351-362. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awh042