The study investigates the neurocognitive stages involved in the speed-accuracy trade-off (SAT). Contrary to previous approach, we did not manipulate speed and accuracy instructions: participants were required to be fast and accurate in a go/no-go task, and we selected post-hoc the groups based on the subjects’ spontaneous behavioral tendency. Based on the reaction times, we selected the fast and slow groups (Speed-groups), and based on the percentage of false alarms, we selected the accurate and inaccurate groups (Accuracy-groups). The two Speed-groups were accuracy-matched, and the two Accuracy-groups were speed-matched. High density EEG and stimulus-locked analyses allowed us to observe group differences both before and after the stimulus onset. Long before the stimulus appearance, the two Speed-groups showed different amplitude of the Bereitschaftspotential (BP), reflecting the activity of the supplementary motor area (SMA); by contrast, the two Accuracy-groups showed different amplitude of the prefrontal negativity (pN), reflecting the activity of the right prefrontal cortex (rPFC). In addition, the post-stimulus event-related potential (ERP) components showed differences between groups: the P1 component was larger in accurate than inaccurate group; the N1 and N2 components were larger in the fast than slow group; the P3 component started earlier and was larger in the fast than slow group. The go minus no-go subtractive wave enhancing go-related processing revealed a differential prefrontal positivity (dpP) that peaked at about 330 ms; the latency and the amplitude of this peak were associated with the speed of the decision process and the efficiency of the stimulus-response mapping, respectively. Overall, data are consistent with the view that speed and accuracy are processed by two interacting but separate neurocognitive systems, with different features in both the anticipation and the response execution phases.

Literature points to cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) as evidence-based therapies for trauma-related disorders. Treatments are typically administered in a vis-à-vis setting with patients reporting symptoms of a previously experienced trauma. Conversely, online-therapies and ongoing trauma have not received adequate attention. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of two brief treatments for health professionals and individuals suffering from the circumstances imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The EMDR and the trauma focused-CBT were administered online during the earliest stage of distress to manage the ongoing trauma associated to quarantine or disease. Thirty-eight patients satisfying the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria for acute stress disorder were randomly assigned to the EMDR or CBT treatment. Both groups received a 7-session therapy, and psychometric tests were administered before, after the treatment and at one-month follow-up to assess traumatic symptoms, depression and anxiety. Results revealed that both treatments reduced anxiety by 30%, and traumatic and depressive symptoms by 55%. Present findings indicate the internet-based EMDR and CBT as equally effective brief treatments, also suggesting a maintenance of the effects as indicated by the follow-up evaluation. The EMDR and CBT might be considered as first line therapies to treat the ongoing trauma and to prevent the sensitization and accumulation of trauma memories.

Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) occurring independently from any stimulus are purely endogenous (emitted potentials) and their neural generators can be unequivocally linked with cognitive processes. In the present study, the subjects performed two similar visual counting tasks: a standard two-stimulus oddball, and an omitted-target oddball task, characterized by the physical absence of the target stimulus. Our investigation aimed at localizing the neural sources of the scalp-recorded endogenous/emitted ERPs. To optimize the source localization, the high temporal resolution of electrophysiology was combined with the fine spatial information provided by the simultaneous recording of functional magnetic resonance (fMRI). Both tasks identified two endogenous ERP components in the 300 to 520 ms interval. An earlier component, pP2, showed a bilateral generator in the anterior Insula. A later P3 component (P3b) was generated bilaterally in the temporal-parietal junction, the premotor and motor area and the anterior intraparietal sulcus (this latter one only in the standard oddball). Anticipatory slow waves (beginning 900 to 500 ms pre-stimulus), also of endogenous nature, were produced by the inferior and middle frontal gyrus and the supplementary and cingulate motor areas. Our protocol disentangled pre- from post-stimulus fMRI activations and provided original clues to the psychophysiological interpretation of emitted/endogenous ERPs.