Dissociation of response inhibition and performance monitoring in the stop signal task using event-related fMRI

Behavioral inhibition and performance monitoring are critical cognitive functions supported by distributed neural networks including the pFC. We examined neurophysiological correlates of motor response inhibition and action monitoring in patients with focal orbitofrontal (OFC) lesions (n = 12) after resection of a primary intracranial tumor or contusion because of traumatic brain injury. Healthy participants served as controls (n = 14). Participants performed a visual stop signal task. We analyzed behavioral performance as well as event-related brain potentials and oscillations. Inhibition difficulty was adjusted individually to yield an equal amount of successful inhibitions across participants. RTs of patients and controls did not differ significantly in go trials or in failed stop trials, and no differences were observed in estimated stop signal RT. However, electrophysiological response patterns during task performance distinguished the groups. Patients with OFC lesions had enhanced P3 amplitudes to congruent condition go signals and to stop signals. In stop trials, patients had attenuated N2 and error-related negativity, but enhanced error positivity. Patients also showed enhanced and prolonged post-error beta band increases for stop errors. This effect was particularly evident in patients whose lesion extended to the subgenual cingulate cortex. In summary, although response inhibition was not impaired, the diminished stop N2 and ERN support a critical role of the OFC in action monitoring. Moreover, the increased stop P3, error positivity, and post-error beta response indicate that OFC injury affected action outcome evaluation and support the notion that the OFC is relevant for the processing of abstract reinforcers such as performing correctly in the task.

Download Full-text

Cortical control and performance monitoring of interrupting and redirecting movements

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences ◽

10.1098/rstb.2016.0201 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 372 (1718) ◽

pp. 20160201 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

Pierre Pouget ◽

Aditya Murthy ◽

Veit Stuphorn

Keyword(s):

Response Inhibition ◽

Performance Monitoring ◽

Brain Structures ◽

Stop Signal Task ◽

Control Mechanisms ◽

Core Network ◽

Ability To Act ◽

And Performance ◽

New Research ◽

Motor Actions

Voluntary behaviour requires control mechanisms that ensure our ability to act independently of habitual and innate response tendencies. Electrophysiological experiments, using the stop-signal task in humans, monkeys and rats, have uncovered a core network of brain structures that is essential for response inhibition. This network is shared across mammals and seems to be conserved throughout their evolution. Recently, new research building on these earlier findings has started to investigate the interaction between response inhibition and other control mechanisms in the brain. Here we describe recent progress in three different areas: selectivity of movement inhibition across different motor systems, re-orientation of motor actions and action evaluation. This article is part of the themed issue ‘Movement suppression: brain mechanisms for stopping and stillness’.

Download Full-text

Cortical silent period reflects individual differences in action stopping performance

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-021-94494-w ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Mario Paci ◽

Giulio Di Cosmo ◽

Mauro Gianni Perrucci ◽

Francesca Ferri ◽

Marcello Costantini

Keyword(s):

Individual Differences ◽

Response Inhibition ◽

Primary Motor Cortex ◽

Silent Period ◽

Intracortical Inhibition ◽

Stop Signal ◽

Stop Signal Task ◽

Behavioral Differences ◽

Cortical Silent Period ◽

Stop Signal Reaction Time

AbstractInhibitory control is the ability to suppress inappropriate movements and unwanted actions, allowing to regulate impulses and responses. This ability can be measured via the Stop Signal Task, which provides a temporal index of response inhibition, namely the stop signal reaction time (SSRT). At the neural level, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) allows to investigate motor inhibition within the primary motor cortex (M1), such as the cortical silent period (CSP) which is an index of GABAB-mediated intracortical inhibition within M1. Although there is strong evidence that intracortical inhibition varies during action stopping, it is still not clear whether differences in the neurophysiological markers of intracortical inhibition contribute to behavioral differences in actual inhibitory capacities. Hence, here we explored the relationship between intracortical inhibition within M1 and behavioral response inhibition. GABABergic-mediated inhibition in M1 was determined by the duration of CSP, while behavioral inhibition was assessed by the SSRT. We found a significant positive correlation between CSP’s duration and SSRT, namely that individuals with greater levels of GABABergic-mediated inhibition seem to perform overall worse in inhibiting behavioral responses. These results support the assumption that individual differences in intracortical inhibition are mirrored by individual differences in action stopping abilities.

Download Full-text

Effect of variability of sequence length of go trials preceding a stop trial on ability of response inhibition in stop-signal task

Somatosensory & Motor Research ◽

10.1080/08990220.2018.1475351 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 35 (2) ◽

pp. 95-102 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Koichi Hiraoka ◽

Atsushi Kinoshita ◽

Hiroshi Kunimura ◽

Masakazu Matsuoka

Keyword(s):

Response Inhibition ◽

Stop Signal ◽

Stop Signal Task ◽

Sequence Length ◽

Stop Trial

Download Full-text

Response inhibition on the stop signal task improves during cardiac contraction

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-018-27513-y ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Charlotte L. Rae ◽

Vanessa E. Botan ◽

Cassandra D. Gould van Praag ◽

Aleksandra M. Herman ◽

Jasmina A. K. Nyyssönen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Response Inhibition ◽

Stop Signal ◽

Cardiac Contraction ◽

Stop Signal Task

Download Full-text

S76. PROACTIVE AND REACTIVE RESPONSE INHIBITION IN INDIVIDUAL WITH SCHIZOTYPY: AN ERP STUDY

Schizophrenia Bulletin ◽

10.1093/schbul/sbaa031.142 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 46 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S63-S63

Author(s):

Ya Wang ◽

Lu-xia Jia ◽

Xiao-jing Qin ◽

Jun-yan Ye ◽

Raymond Chan

Keyword(s):

Response Inhibition ◽

Reaction Times ◽

Proactive Inhibition ◽

Stop Signal ◽

Event Related Potential ◽

Neural Mechanisms ◽

Stop Signal Task ◽

Reactive Inhibition ◽

Reactive Control ◽

Present Event

Abstract Background Schizotypy, a subclinical group at risk for schizophrenia, have been found to show impairments in response inhibition. Recent studies differentiated proactive inhibition (a preparatory process before the stimuli appears) and reactive inhibition (the inhibition of a pre-potent or already initiated response). However, it remains unclear whether both proactive and reactive inhibition are impaired in schizotypy and what are the neural mechanisms. The present event-related potential study used an adapted stop-signal task to examine the two inhibition processes and the underlying neural mechanisms in schizotypy compared to healthy controls (HC). Methods A total of 21 individuals with schizotypy and 25 matched HC participated in this study. To explore different degrees of proactive inhibition, we set three conditions: a “certain” go condition which no stop signal occurred, a “17% no go” condition in which stop signal would appear in 17% of trials, and a “33% no go” condition in which stop signal would appear in 33% of trials. All participants completed all the conditions, and EEG was recorded when participants completed the task. Results Behavioral results showed that in both schizotypy and HC, the reaction times (RT) of go trials were significantly prolonged as the no go percentage increased, and HC showed significantly longer go RT compared with schizotypy in both “17% no go” and “33% no go” conditions, suggesting greater proactive inhibition in HC. Stop signal reaction times (SSRTs) in “33% no go” condition was shorter than “17% no go” condition in both groups. Schizotypy showed significantly longer SSRTs in both “17% no go” and “33% no go” conditions than HC, indicating schizotypy relied more on reactive inhibition. ERP results showed that schizotypy showed larger overall N1 for go trials than HC irrespective of condition, which may indicate a compensation process in schizotypy. Schizotypy showed smaller N2 on both successful and unsuccessful stop trials in “17% no go” conditions than HC, while no group difference was found in “33% no go” conditions for stop trials, which may indicate impaired error processing. Discussion These results suggested that schizotypy tended to be impaired in both proactive control and reactive control processes.

Download Full-text