The findings of the present study tend to support the view of N2 as reflecting inhibitory processing, at least in part, in light of implemented task design, which was aimed at eliminating the inherent “bias” towards the Go stimulus. With no “prepotency” established (equal probability task) and no apparent task demand “bias” (emphases on equal importance given to speed and accuracy as well as feedback on all possible outcomes) for the Go stimulus, according to the conflict monitoring view, the task would predictably show no difference between Go and NoGo N2 amplitudes. In contrast, in the present study, NoGo N2 amplitude was significantly larger in the frontal areas, confirming studies that have interpreted this effect in terms of response inhibition (Eimer, 1993; Falkenstein et al., 1999; Jodo and Kayama, 1992).
