Background:Volleyball athletes need to correctly judge the changes in the field, identify the intent of opponents, and grasp the opportunity to perceive and make adjustments.
Therefore, it is crucial for athletes to have the ability of conflict monitoring, response selection and inhibition of movement. The present study used Go/NoGo paradigm to investigate the processing
of conflict monitoring and behavior control, expecting to provide scientific basis for selection of volleyball athletes.
Methods:The right-handed participants included 15 volleyball athletes, 10 archery athletes, and 9 people as control group. All the participants reported normal or corrected-to-normal
vision, normal audition and with no history of neurological or psychiatric illness. Participants sat right in front of the computer screen with a distance of 100cm. Participants were asked to watch
the screen carefully and make response to Go stimuli. According to the grand average waveforms of ERP data, the latency and peak amplitude of N2 and P3 were measured at Fz, Cz and Pz sites during the
time window of 150-300ms for N2 and 200-500ms for P3, respectively.
Results:(1) For N2 component, the N2 latency was faster in volleyball group (208ms) than that in control group (243 ms; F（2，34）=2.97，p =0.065). There was a significant three-way
interaction of stimulus * electrodes * groups for N2 latency (F(4，68)=3.85，p = 0.007) and further analysis revealed that the N2 latency in response to Go stimuli was significantly shorter in
volleyball (Fz and Cz sites) and archery (Pz site) athletes than in control people, whereas the N2 latency in response to NoGo stimuli was significantly shorter for both volleyball and archery
athletes than control group at Pz site. Although NoGo stimuli elicited enhanced N2 (-2.68uV) than did Go stimuli (-0.97uV; F(1，34)=36.43, p =0.00), we did not find any effects related to group (ps >
(2) For P3 component, we found a significant main effect of group for P3 latency (F(2，34)=3.23，p =0.05), showing that both the volleyball (344ms) and archery (345ms) athletes had shorter latency than
did control group (380ms). Similarly, we also found a significant main effect of groups for P3 amplitude (F(2,34)=7.11, p = 0.003), revealing that the P3 amplitude in both volleyball and archery
athletes was significantly larger than that in control group. No other interested interactions with group were found (p > 0.05).
Conclusions:Due to the fact that the N2 amplitudes did not differ among three groups, the conflict monitoring is indeed similar for these three groups. Interestingly, the shorter N2
latency in volleyball athletes indicates that volleyball athletes can monitor the conflict faster versus control group. The enhanced P3 with fast peak latency in athletes suggest that volleyball and
archery athletes have higher conflict inhibition ability.