It has been argued that NoGo “effects” may be confounded with motor potentials (Kok, 1986; Kopp et al., 1996). Kopp et al. (1996) found significant positive deflections in their lateralized readiness potentials (LRP) from NoGo trials along with the N2 modulation based on response priming. More recently, Smid et al. (2000) also found N2 modulation in a simple Go/NoGo task and a positive deflection in LRP from the NoGo trials of the simple conditions. The Go/NoGo task in the present study was not designed to control for the confounds that may be presented by the motor potentials. However, based on the findings of no LRP activity in response to the specific Go priming cues in the cue-target interval, Bruin et al. (2001) concluded that “there is no differential preparation of the primary motor cortex on the basis of the cue information about the potential response hand” (p. 1668). In the same study, the N2 component in NoGo trials was not modulated as a function of response priming. The authors have speculated that a modulation of the N2 inhibition component in
