The effect of long-term highly physical activity modulates event-related potential indices for inhibition control in postmenopausal women


Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether long-term highly physical activity affects inhibition control ability among postmenopausal women by evaluation Go/Nogo tasks from behavioral and neuroelectric perspectives. Method: This prospective trial included 251 postmenopausal women. Subjects were screened by both physical and psychological tests and grouped into a long-term highly physical activity group (n = 30) and control group (n = 30) according to their physical activity level and insisting time. A Go/Nogo task was used to assess the inhibition. Results: The long-term highly physical activity group had faster Go RT than the control group, and no significant differences were found in the accuracy of the Nogo task between two groups. The N2 amplitude was largest at FC2, and the N2 latency in the long-term highly physical activity group was shorter than that in the control group. The P3 amplitude under Go condition was smaller than Nogo condition and a significant interaction was observed in condition, electrode and group. The P3 latency under Go condition was significant shorter than under Nogo condition. Conclusion: Long-term highly physical activity group increases the efficiency of the inhibitory control system by increasing the activity of response monitoring processes. Also, the right frontal-center region plays a sensitive role in this inhibitory process.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. That said, if the manuscript is accepted for publication then the reviewer reports can be optionally signed and made public (see below).
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).
  • If the article is accepted, then the authors are given the option to reproduce the reviewer reports, and their full revision history, alongside their finally published article. In those instances, the comments of the reviewers will be made public (although reviewers' names will never be revealed unless the reviewer opted to sign their review, as noted above).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at