scholarly journals Subcortical processes of motor response inhibition during a stop signal task

NeuroImage ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 1352-1363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiang-Shan Ray Li ◽  
Peisi Yan ◽  
Rajita Sinha ◽  
Tien-Wen Lee
2018 ◽  
Vol 125 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damien Brevers ◽  
Etienne Dubuisson ◽  
Fabien Dejonghe ◽  
Julien Dutrieux ◽  
Mathieu Petieau ◽  
...  

We examined proactive (early restraint in preparation for stopping) and reactive (late correction to stop ongoing action) motor response inhibition in two groups of participants: professional athletes ( n = 28) and nonathletes ( n = 25). We recruited the elite athletes from Belgian national taekwondo and fencing teams. We estimated proactive and reactive inhibition with a modified version of the stop-signal task (SST) in which participants inhibited categorizing left/right arrows. The probability of the stop signal was manipulated across blocks of trials by providing probability cues from the background computer screen color (green = 0%, yellow =17%, orange = 25%, red = 33%). Participants performed two sessions of the SST, where proactive inhibition was operationalized with increased go-signal reaction time as a function of increased stop-signal probability and reactive inhibition was indicated by stop-signal reaction time latency. Athletes exhibited higher reactive inhibition performance than nonathletes. In addition, athletes exhibited higher proactive inhibition than nonathletes in Session 1 (but not Session 2) of the SST. As top-level athletes exhibited heightened reactive inhibition and were faster to reach and maintain consistent proactive motor response inhibition, these results confirm an evaluative process that can discriminate elite athleticism through a fine-grained analysis of inhibitory control.


2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carin M. Tillman ◽  
Lisa B. Thorell ◽  
Karin C. Brocki ◽  
Gunilla Bohlin

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily J. Meachon ◽  
Marcel Meyer ◽  
Kate Wilmut ◽  
Martina Zemp ◽  
Georg W. Alpers

Developmental Coordination Disorder and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder are unique neurodevelopmental disorders with overlaps in executive functions and motor control. The conditions co-occur in up to 50% of cases, raising questions of the pathological mechanisms of DCD versus ADHD. Few studies have examined these overlaps in adults with DCD and/or ADHD. Therefore, to provide insights about executive functions and motor control between adults with DCD, ADHD, both conditions (DCD + ADHD), or typically developed controls, this study used a stop-signal task and parallel EEG measurement. We assessed executive performance via go accuracy and go reaction time, as well as motor response inhibition via stop-signal reaction time. This was complemented with analysis of event-related potentials (ERPs). Based on existing investigations of adults with DCD or ADHD, we expected (1) groups would not differ in behavioral performance on stop and go trials, but (2) differences in ERPs, particularly in components N200 (index of cognitive control) and P300 (index of attention and inhibition) would be evident. The sample included N = 50 adults with DCD (n = 12), ADHD (n = 9), DCD + ADHD (n = 7), and control participants (n = 22). We replicated that there were no between-group differences for behavioral-level executive performance and motor response inhibition. However, on a physiological level, ERP components N200 and P300 differed between groups, particularly during successful response inhibition. These ERPs reflect potential endophenotypic differences not evident in overt behavior of participants with ADHD and/or DCD. This suggests a disorder specific employment of inhibition or general executive functions in groups of adults with DCD, DCD + ADHD, ADHD, or control participants.


2009 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Morein-Zamir ◽  
N. A. Fineberg ◽  
T. W. Robbins ◽  
B. J. Sahakian

BackgroundObsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has been associated with impairments in stop-signal inhibition, a measure of motor response suppression. The study used a novel paradigm to examine both thought suppression and response inhibition in OCD, where the modulatory effects of stimuli relevant to OCD could also be assessed. Additionally, the study compared inhibitory impairments in OCD patients with and without co-morbid depression, as depression is the major co-morbidity of OCD.MethodVolitional response suppression and unintentional thought suppression to emotive and neutral stimuli were examined using a novel thought stop-signal task. The thought stop-signal task was administered to non-depressed OCD patients, depressed OCD patients and healthy controls (n=20 per group).ResultsMotor inhibition impairments were evident in OCD patients, while motor response performance did not differ between patients and controls. Switching to a new response but not motor inhibition was affected by stimulus relevance in OCD patients. Additionally, unintentional thought suppression as measured by repetition priming was intact. OCD patients with and without depression did not differ on any task performance measures, though there were significant differences in all self-reported measures.ConclusionsResults support motor inhibition deficits in OCD that remain stable regardless of stimulus meaning or co-morbid depression. Only switching to a new response was influenced by stimulus meaning. When response inhibition was successful in OCD patients, so was the unintentional suppression of the accompanying thought.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Paci ◽  
Giulio Di Cosmo ◽  
Mauro Gianni Perrucci ◽  
Francesca Ferri ◽  
Marcello Costantini

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 ◽  
pp. e43-e44
Author(s):  
P. Basu ◽  
S. Choudhury ◽  
A. Roy ◽  
M.R. Baker ◽  
S.N. Baker ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 92 (8) ◽  
pp. A8-A8
Author(s):  
N Skandali ◽  
BJ Sahakian ◽  
TWR Robbins ◽  
V Voon

ObjectivesImpulsivity is a multifaceted construct that involves a tendency to act prematurely with little foresight, reflection or control. Waiting impulsivity is one aspect of action impulsivity and is commonly studied in animals using tasks such as the 5-choice serial reaction time task (5CSRTT).1 It is neurochemically distinct from motor response inhibition defined as the ability to restrain or cancel a pre-potent motor response and measured with no-go and stop-signal tasks respectively.1 Serotonin modulates waiting impulsivity as decreased serotonergic transmission promotes premature responding in the rodent 5CSRT and the human analogue 4CSRT task.2 Potential mechanisms contributing to waiting impulsivity include proactive or tonic inhibition, motivational processes and sensitivity to feedback and delay.3 Higher waiting impulsivity in response to high reward cues was previously associated with greater subthalamic nucleus connectivity with orbitofrontal cortex and greater subgenual cingulate connectivity with anterior insula.4MethodsWe administered a clinically relevant dose of escitalopram (20mg) in healthy subjects in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-groups design study and assessed its effect on waiting impulsivity using the well-validated 4CSRT task. Compared to previous studies,2 4 we added another test block with increased potential gain to assess the interaction between premature responding and reward processing. We recruited sixty-six healthy participants who completed an extensive neuropsychological test battery assessing probabilistic reversal learning, set-shifting, response inhibition, emotional processing and waiting impulsivity. Sixty participants (N=60, 26 females, 34 males) completed the 4CSRT task with N=30 in the escitalopram and N=30 in the placebo group, due to technical errors and experienced side-effects for the remaining six participants. The results of the other cognitive tasks are reported separately.5ResultsEscitalopram increased premature responding in the high incentive condition of the 4CSRT task, p=.028, t= 2.275, this effect being driven by male participants, p=.019, t=2.532 (for females, p>.05). We further show that escitalopram increased premature responses after a premature response in the same block again in male participants only, p=.034, Mann-Whitney U= 61.500. We found no correlation between premature responding in the 4CSRT task, in any test block, and the Stop-signal reaction time, the primary measure of the stop-signal task completed by the same participants (reported in [5]).ConclusionsWe show that acute escitalopram increased premature responding in healthy male participants only in high incentive conditions potentially mediated potentially through an effect on increased incentive salience. We also show that acute escitalopram increased perseverative responding thus producing a maladaptive response strategy. We show no correlation between SSRT and premature responding in the same participants consistent with these two forms of impulsivity being neurochemically and anatomically distinct. We interpret our findings in the context of acute escitalopram decreasing serotonergic transmission in some brain areas through inhibitory actions on terminal 5-HT release mediated by auto-receptors on raphe 5-HT neurons analogous to the presumed transient reduction in 5-HT activity caused by ATD.5Our findings provide further insights in the relationship of premature responding and reward processing and our understanding of pathological impulse control behaviours.References Eagle DM, Bari A, Robbins TW. The neuropsychopharmacology of action inhibition: cross-species translation of the stop-signal and go/no-go tasks. Psychopharmacology 2008;199(3):439456. Worbe Y, Savulich G, Voon V, Fernandez-Egea E, Robbins TW. Serotonin depletion induces waiting impulsivityon the human four-choice serial reaction time task: cross-species translational significance. Neuropsychopharmacology 2014;39(6):15191526. Voon V. Models of impulsivity with a focus on waiting impulsivity: translational potential for neuropsychiatric disorders. Current Addiction Reports 2014;1(4):281288. Mechelmans DJ, Strelchuk D, Doamayor N, Banca P, Robbins TW, Baek K, et al. Reward sensitivity and waiting impulsivity: shift towards reward valuation away from action control. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 2017;20(12):971978. Skandali N, Rowe JB, Voon V, Deakin JB, Cardinal RN, Cormack F, et al. Dissociable effects of acute SSRI (escitalopram) on executive, learning and emotional functions in healthy humans. Neuropsychopharmacology 2018;43(13):26452651.


2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (15) ◽  
pp. 5990-5997 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea L. Robertson ◽  
Kenji Ishibashi ◽  
Mark A. Mandelkern ◽  
Amira K. Brown ◽  
Dara G. Ghahremani ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alican Caglayan ◽  
Katharina Stumpenhorst ◽  
York Winter

Ceasing an ongoing motor response requires action cancelation. This is impaired in many pathologies such as attention deficit disorder and schizophrenia. Action cancelation is measured by the stop signal task that estimates how quickly a motor response can be stopped when it is already being executed. Apart from human studies, the stop signal task has been used to investigate neurobiological mechanisms of action cancelation overwhelmingly in rats and only rarely in mice, despite the need for a genetic model approach. Contributing factors to the limited number of mice studies may be the long and laborious training that is necessary and the requirement for a very loud (100 dB) stop signal. We overcame these limitations by employing a fully automated home-cage-based setup. We connected a home-cage to the operant box via a gating mechanism, that allowed individual ID chipped mice to start sessions voluntarily. Furthermore, we added a negative reinforcement consisting of a mild air puff with escape option to the protocol. This specifically improved baseline inhibition to 94% (from 84% with the conventional approach). To measure baseline inhibition the stop is signaled immediately with trial onset thus measuring action restraint rather than action cancelation ability. A high baseline allowed us to measure action cancelation ability with higher sensitivity. Furthermore, our setup allowed us to reduce the intensity of the acoustic stop signal from 100 to 70 dB. We constructed inhibition curves from stop trials with daily adjusted delays to estimate stop signal reaction times (SSRTs). SSRTs (median 88 ms) were lower than reported previously, which we attribute to the observed high baseline inhibition. Our automated training protocol reduced training time by 17% while also promoting minimal experimenter involvement. This sensitive and labor efficient stop signal task procedure should therefore facilitate the investigation of action cancelation pathologies in genetic mouse models.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document