In this perspective article, I summarized certain theoretical and methodological issues concerning the investigation of the contribution of cognitive and motor processes to the electrophysiological stimulus-preceding activity. In particular, the question of whether the contingent negative variation (CNV) is a marker reflecting both cognitive expectancy and motor preparation in the S1–S2 paradigms was discussed. New evidence suggests that it is possible to isolate an automatic temporal expectancy-related cognitive mechanism relying on a passive CNV after ruling out the contribution of task-related processes, including motor and decisional processes, to it. This can be achieved by simply manipulating the trial temporal structure according to a probabilistic, oddball distribution. The scientific value of this finding is framed within a historical perspective in the attempt to bridge together the classic literature linking the CNV to stimulus preparation and the more recently published literature linking the CNV to temporal processing.

How we compute time is not fully understood. Questions include whether an automatic brain mechanism is engaged in temporally regular environmental structure in order to anticipate events, and whether this can be dissociated from task-related processes, including response preparation, selection and execution. To investigate these issues, a passive temporal oddball task requiring neither time-based motor response nor explicit decision was specifically designed and delivered to participants during high-density, event-related potentials recording. Participants were presented with pairs of audiovisual stimuli (S1 and S2) interspersed with an Inter-Stimulus Interval (ISI) that was manipulated according to an oddball probabilistic distribution. In the standard condition (70% of trials), the ISI lasted 1,500 ms, while in the two alternative, deviant conditions (15% each), it lasted 2,500 and 3,000 ms. The passive over-exposition to the standard ISI drove participants to automatically and progressively create an implicit temporal expectation of S2 onset, reflected by the time course of the Contingent Negative Variation response, which always peaked in correspondence to the point of S2 maximum expectation and afterwards inverted in polarity towards the baseline. Brain source analysis of S1- and ISI-related ERP activity revealed activation of sensorial cortical areas and the supplementary motor area (SMA), respectively. In particular, since the SMA time course synchronised with standard ISI, we suggest that this area is the major cortical generator of the temporal CNV reflecting an automatic, action-independent mechanism underlying temporal expectancy.

Temporal prediction (TP) is a flexible and dynamic cognitive ability. Depending on the internal or external nature of information exploited to generate TP, distinct cognitive and brain mechanisms are engaged with the same final goal of reducing uncertainty about the future. In this study, we investigated the specific brain mechanisms involved in internally and externally driven TP. To this end, we employed an experimental paradigm purposely designed to elicit and compare externally and internally driven TP and a combined approach based on the application of a distributed source reconstruction modeling on a high spatial resolution electrophysiological data array. Specific spatiotemporal ERP signatures were identified, with significant modulation of contingent negative variation and frontal late sustained positivity in external and internal TP contexts, respectively. These different electrophysiological patterns were supported by the engagement of distinct neural networks, including a left sensorimotor and a prefrontal circuit for externally and internally driven TP, respectively.