Greater activation of the response inhibition network in females compared to males during stop signal task performance

Abstract. Because more and more young people are constantly presented with the opportunity to access information and connect to others via their smartphones, they report to be in a state of permanent alertness. In the current study, we define such a state as smartphone vigilance, an awareness that one can always get connected to others in combination with a permanent readiness to respond to incoming smartphone notifications. We hypothesized that constantly resisting the urge to interact with their phones draws on response inhibition, and hence interferes with students’ ability to inhibit prepotent responses in a concurrent task. To test this, we conducted a preregistered experiment, employing a Bayesian sequential sampling design, where we manipulated smartphone visibility and smartphone notifications during a stop-signal task that measures the ability to inhibit prepotent responses. The task was constructed such that we could disentangle response inhibition from action selection. Results show that the mere visibility of a smartphone is sufficient to experience vigilance and distraction, and that this is enhanced when students receive notifications. Curiously enough, these strong experiences were unrelated to stop-signal task performance. These findings raise new questions about when and how smartphones can impact performance.

Download Full-text

Causal Prefrontal Contributions to Stop-Signal Task Performance in Humans

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience ◽

10.1162/jocn_a_01652 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-14

Author(s):

Michael K. Yeung ◽

Ami Tsuchida ◽

Lesley K. Fellows

Keyword(s):

Task Performance ◽

Inhibitory Control ◽

Cognitive Neuroscience ◽

Response Inhibition ◽

Frontal Lobes ◽

Stop Signal ◽

Stop Signal Task ◽

Healthy Controls ◽

Full Understanding ◽

Underlying Mechanisms

The frontal lobes have long been implicated in inhibitory control, but a full understanding of the underlying mechanisms remains elusive. The stop-signal task has been widely used to probe instructed response inhibition in cognitive neuroscience. The processes involved have been modeled and related to putative brain substrates. However, there has been surprisingly little human lesion research using this task, with the few existing studies implicating different prefrontal regions. Here, we tested the effects of focal prefrontal damage on stop-signal task performance in a large sample of people with chronic focal damage affecting the frontal lobes ( n = 42) and demographically matched healthy people ( n = 60). Patients with damage to the left lateral, right lateral, dorsomedial, or ventromedial frontal lobe had slower stop-signal RT compared to healthy controls. There were systematic differences in the patterns of impairment across frontal subgroups: Those with damage to the left or right lateral and dorsomedial frontal lobes, but not those with ventromedial frontal damage, were slower than controls to “go” as well as to stop. These findings suggest that multiple prefrontal regions make necessary but distinct contributions to stop-signal task performance. As a consequence, stop-signal RT slowing is not strongly localizing within the frontal lobes.

Download Full-text

Hard to Resist? The Effect of Smartphone Visibility and Notifications on Response Inhibition

10.31234/osf.io/tnmq3 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Niklas Johannes ◽

Harm Veling ◽

Thijs Verwijmeren ◽

Moniek Buijzen

Keyword(s):

Young People ◽

Task Performance ◽

Response Inhibition ◽

Sampling Design ◽

Sequential Sampling ◽

Stop Signal ◽

Stop Signal Task ◽

Impact Performance ◽

Access Information ◽

Prepotent Responses

Because more and more young people are constantly presented with the opportunity to access information and connect to others via their smartphones, they report to be in a state of permanent alertness. In the current study, we define such a state as smartphone vigilance, an awareness that one can always get connected to others in combination with a permanent readiness to respond to incoming smartphone notifications. We hypothesized that constantly resisting the urge to interact with their phones draws on response inhibition, and hence interferes with students’ ability to inhibit prepotent responses in a concurrent task. To test this, we conducted a preregistered experiment, employing a Bayesian sequential sampling design, where we manipulated smartphone visibility and smartphone notifications during a stop-signal task that measures the ability to inhibit prepotent responses. The task was constructed such that we could disentangle response inhibition from action selection. Results show that the mere visibility of a smartphone is sufficient to experience vigilance and distraction, and that this is enhanced when students receive notifications. Curiously enough, these strong experiences were unrelated to stop-signal task performance. These findings raise new questions about when and how smartphones can impact performance.

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

Regional homogeneity of resting state fMRI signals predicts Stop signal task performance

NeuroImage ◽

10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.098 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 60 (1) ◽

pp. 539-544 ◽

Cited By ~ 71

Author(s):

Lixia Tian ◽

Juejing Ren ◽

Yufeng Zang

Keyword(s):

Task Performance ◽

Resting State ◽

Resting State Fmri ◽

Regional Homogeneity ◽

Stop Signal ◽

Stop Signal Task

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