Stopping and Restarting an Unfolding Action at Various Times

2003 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim McGarry ◽  
Romeo Chua ◽  
Ian M. Franks
Keyword(s):  
Nonlinear Function ◽  
Race Model ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Stochastic Independence ◽  
Timing Task ◽  
Stop And Go ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Horse Race Model

The ability to inhibit an unfolding action is usually investigated using a stop signal (or go—stop) task. The data from the stop-signal task are often described using a horse-race model whose key assumption is that each process (i.e., go, stop) exhibits stochastic independence. Using three variations of a coincident-timing task (i.e., go, go—stop, and go—stop—go) we extend previous considerations of stochastic independence by analysing the go latencies for prior effects of stopping. On random trials in the go—stop—go task the signal sweep was paused for various times at various distances before the target. Significant increases in latency errors were reported on those trials on which the signal was paused (p <.005). Further analyses of the pause trials revealed significant effects for both the stopping interval (p <.001) and the pause interval (p <.05). Tukey post hoc analyses demonstrated increased latency errors as a linear function of the stopping interval, as expected, and decreased latency errors as a nonlinear function of the pause interval. These latter results indicate that the latencies of the go process, as reflected in the latency errors, may not exhibit stochastic independence under certain conditions. Various control mechanisms were considered in an attempt to explain these data.

scholarly journals Perceptual Degradation Affects Stop-Signal Performance in Normal Healthy Adults

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria V. Soloveva ◽  
Sharna D. Jamadar ◽  
Matthew Hughes ◽  
Dennis Velakoulis ◽  
Govinda Poudel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Basal Ganglia ◽  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Completion Time ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Race Model ◽  
Healthy Adults ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Horse Race ◽  
Horse Race Model

AbstractDuring stop-signal task performance, little is known how the quality of visual information of the ‘go’ stimuli may indirectly affect the interplay between the ‘go’ and ‘stop’ processes. In this study, we assessed how perceptual degradation of the visual ‘go’ stimuli affect response inhibition. Twenty-six healthy individuals (mean age 33.34 ± 9.61) completed a modified 12-minute stop-signal task, where ‘V’ and ‘Y’ letters were used as visual ‘go’ stimuli. The stimuli were subjected to four levels of perceptual degradation using Gaussian smoothing, to parametrically manipulate stop difficulty across low, intermediate-1, intermediate-2 and high difficulty conditions. On 33% of trials, the stop-signal (50ms audio tone) followed a ‘go’ stimulus after a stop-signal delay, which was individually adjusted for each participant. As predicted, we found that with increased level of stop difficulty (little perceptual degradation), reaction times on ‘go’ trials and the proportion of successful behavioural inhibitions on ‘stop’ trials (P(i)) decreased in normal healthy adults. Contrary to our predictions, there was no effect of increased stop difficulty on the number of correct responses on ‘go’ trials and reaction times on ‘stop’ trials. Overall, manipulation of the completion time of the ‘go’ process via perceptual degradation has been partially successful, whereby increased stop difficulty differentially affected P(i) and SSRT. These findings have implications for the relationship between the ‘go’ and ‘stop’ processes and the horse-race model, which may be limited in explaining the role of various cortico-basal ganglia loops in modulation of response inhibition.HighlightsManipulation of the completion time of the ‘go’ process is partially successfulPerceptual degradation differentially affects stop-signal performanceIncreased stop difficulty (easy ‘go’) results in lower P(i)Increased stop difficulty (easy ‘go’) has no effect on SSRTHorse-race model does not fully explain basal ganglia involvement in inhibition

Horse-race model simulations of the stop-signal procedure

2003 ◽  
Vol 112 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido P.H. Band ◽  
Maurits W. van der Molen ◽  
Gordon D. Logan
Keyword(s):  
Race Model ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Horse Race ◽  
Model Simulations ◽  
Horse Race Model

scholarly journals Leveling the Field for a Fairer Race between Going and Stopping: Neural Evidence for the Race Model of Motor Inhibition from a New Version of the Stop Signal Task

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 590-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobin Dykstra ◽  
Darcy A. Waller ◽  
Eliot Hazeltine ◽  
Jan R. Wessel
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Model ◽  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Race Model ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Motor Inhibition ◽  
Neural Process ◽  
Processing Demands ◽  
Inhibition Process

The stop signal task (SST) is the gold standard experimental model of inhibitory control. However, neither SST condition–contrast (stop vs. go, successful vs. failed stop) purely operationalizes inhibition. Because stop trials include a second, infrequent signal, the stop versus go contrast confounds inhibition with attentional and stimulus processing demands. While this confound is controlled for in the successful versus failed stop contrast, the go process is systematically faster on failed stop trials, contaminating the contrast with a different noninhibitory confound. Here, we present an SST variant to address both confounds and evaluate putative neural indices of inhibition with these influences removed. In our variant, stop signals occurred on every trial, equating the noninhibitory demands of the stop versus go contrast. To entice participants to respond despite the impending stop signals, responses produced before stop signals were rewarded. This also reversed the go process bias that typically affects the successful versus failed stop contrast. We recorded scalp electroencephalography in this new version of the task (as well as a standard version of the SST with infrequent stop signal) and found that, even under these conditions, the properties of the frontocentral stop signal P3 ERP remained consistent with the race model. Specifically, in both tasks, the amplitude of the P3 was increased on stop versus go trials. Moreover, the onset of this P3 occurred earlier for successful compared with failed stop trials in both tasks, consistent with the proposal of the race model that an earlier start of the inhibition process will increase stopping success. Therefore, the frontocentral stop signal P3 represents a neural process whose properties are in line with the predictions of the race model of motor inhibition, even when the SST's confounds are controlled.

Response inhibition in a new “Stroop-matching/stop-signal” protocol corroborates the assumptions predicted by the horse-race model.

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-217
Author(s):  
Armando dos Santos Afonso ◽  
Anna Carolina de Almeida Portugal ◽  
Ariane Leão Caldas ◽  
Luiz Renato Rodrigues Carreiro ◽  
Walter Machado-Pinheiro
Keyword(s):  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Race Model ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Horse Race ◽  
Horse Race Model

scholarly journals Latency and amplitude of the stop-signal P3 event-related potential are related to inhibitory GABAa activity in primary motor cortex

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Hynd ◽  
Cheol Soh ◽  
Benjamin O. Rangel ◽  
Jan R. Wessel
Keyword(s):  
Motor Cortex ◽  
Primary Motor Cortex ◽  
Short Interval ◽  
Race Model ◽  
Intracortical Inhibition ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Gabaergic Neurotransmission ◽  
Overt Behavior

AbstractBy stopping actions even after their initiation, humans can adapt their ongoing behavior rapidly to changing environmental circumstances. The neural processes underlying the implementation of rapid action-stopping are still controversially discussed. In the early 1990s, a fronto-central P3 event-related potential (ERP) was identified in the human EEG response following stop-signals in the classic stop-signal task, accompanied by the proposal that this ERP reflects the “inhibitory” side of the purported horse-race underlying successful action-stopping. Later studies have lent support to this interpretation by finding that the amplitude and onset of the stop-signal P3 relate to both overt behavior and to movement-related EEG activity in ways predicted by the race model. However, such studies are limited by the ability of EEG to allow direct inferences about the presence (or absence) of true, physiologically inhibitory signaling at the neuronal level. To address this, we here present a cross-modal individual differences investigation of the relationship between the features stop-signal P3 ERP and GABAergic neurotransmission in primary motor cortex (M1, as measured by paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation). Following recent work, we measured short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), a marker of inhibitory GABAa activity in M1, in a group of 41 human participants who also performed the stop-signal task while undergoing EEG recordings. In line with the P3-inhibition hypothesis, we found that subjects with stronger inhibitory GABA activity in M1 also showed both faster onsets and larger amplitudes of the stop-signal P3. This provides direct evidence linking the properties of this ERP to a true physiological index of motor system inhibition. We discuss these findings in the context of recent theoretical developments and empirical findings regarding the neural implementation of inhibitory control during action-stopping.

scholarly journals Cross-task contributions of fronto-basal ganglia circuitry in response inhibition and conflict-induced slowing

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Jahfari ◽  
K Richard Ridderinkhof ◽  
Anne GE Collins ◽  
Tomas Knapen ◽  
Lourens J Waldorp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reinforcement Learning ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Information Uncertainty ◽  
Information Sampling ◽  
Reinforcement Learning Model

ABSTRACTWhy are we so slow in choosing the lesser of two evils? We considered whether such slowing relates to uncertainty about the value of these options, which arises from the tendency to avoid them during learning, and whether such slowing relates to fronto-subthalamic inhibitory control mechanisms. 49 participants performed a reinforcement-learning task and a stop-signal task while fMRI was recorded. A reinforcement-learning model was used to quantify learning strategies. Individual differences in lose-lose slowing related to information uncertainty due to sampling, and independently, to less efficient response inhibition in the stop-signal task. Neuroimaging analysis revealed an analogous dissociation: subthalamic nucleus (STN) BOLD activity related to variability in stopping latencies, whereas weaker fronto-subthalamic connectivity related to slowing and information sampling. Across tasks, fast inhibitors increased STN activity for successfully cancelled responses in the stop task, but decreased activity for lose-lose choices. These data support the notion that fronto-STN communication implements a rapid but transient brake on response execution, and that slowing due to decision uncertainty could result from an inefficient release of this “hold your horses” mechanism.

scholarly journals Paradox resolved: stop signal race model with negative dependence

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Colonius ◽  
Adele Diederich
Keyword(s):  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Race Model ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Inhibition Mechanism ◽  
Apparent Paradox ◽  
Processing Times ◽  
Neurophysiological Studies ◽  
Gaze Holding

The ability to inhibit our responses voluntarily is an important case of cognitive control. The stop-signal paradigm is a popular tool to study response inhibition. Participants perform a response time task (go task) and, occasionally, the go stimulus is followed by a stop signal after a variable delay, indicating subjects to withhold their response (stop task). The main interest of modeling is in estimating the unobservable stop-signal processing time, that is, the covert latency of the stopping process as a characterization of the response inhibition mechanism. In theindependent race modelthe stop-signal task is represented as a race between stochastically independent go and stop processes. Without making any specific distributional assumptions about the processing times, the model allows to estimate the mean time to cancel a response. However, neurophysiological studies on countermanding saccadic eye movements have shown that neural correlates of go and stop processes consist of networks of mutuallyinteractinggaze-shifting and gaze-holding neurons. This poses a major challenge in formulating linking propositions between the behavioral and neural findings. Here we propose adependent race modelthat postulates perfect negative stochastic dependence between go and stop activations. The model is consistent with the concept of interacting processes while retaining the simplicity and elegance of the distribution-free independent race model. For mean data, the dependent model’s predictions remain identical to those of the independent model. The resolution of this apparent paradox advances the understanding of mechanisms of response inhibition and paves the way for modeling more complex situations.

Inhibitory Control and the Frontal Eye Fields

2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (12) ◽  
pp. 2804-2812 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil G. Muggleton ◽  
Chiao-Yun Chen ◽  
Ovid J. L. Tzeng ◽  
Daisy L. Hung ◽  
Chi-Hung Juan
Keyword(s):  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Visual Processes ◽  
Manual Responses

Inhibitory control mechanisms are important in a range of behaviors to prevent execution of motor acts which, having been planned, are no longer necessary. Ready examples of this can be seen in a range of sports, such as cricket and baseball, where the choice between execution or inhibition of a bat swing must be made in a brief time interval. The role of the FEFs, an area typically described in relation to eye movement functions but also involved in visual processes, was investigated in an inhibitory control task using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). A stop signal task with manual responses was used, providing measures of impulsivity and inhibitory control. TMS over FEF had no effect on response generation (impulsivity, indexed by go signal RT) but disrupted inhibitory control (indexed by stop signal RT). This is the first demonstration of a role for FEF in this type of task in normal subjects in a task which did not require eye movements and complements previous TMS findings of roles for pre-SMA and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) in inhibitory control.

scholarly journals Action Control Deficits in Patients With Essential Tremor

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shelby Hughes ◽  
Daniel O. Claassen ◽  
Wery P.M. van den Wildenberg ◽  
Fenna T. Phibbs ◽  
Elise B. Bradley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Essential Tremor ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Action Control ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Motor Symptoms ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Functional Changes ◽  
Severe Motor ◽  
Action Initiation

AbstractObjectives: Essential tremor (ET) is a movement disorder characterized by action tremor which impacts motor execution. Given the disrupted cerebellar-thalamo-cortical networks in ET, we hypothesized that ET could interfere with the control mechanisms involved in regulating motor performance. The ability to inhibit or stop actions is critical for navigating many daily life situations such as driving or social interactions. The current study investigated the speed of action initiation and two forms of action control, response stopping and proactive slowing in ET. Methods: Thirty-three ET patients and 25 healthy controls (HCs) completed a choice reaction task and a stop-signal task, and measures of going speed, proactive slowing and stop latencies were assessed. Results: Going speed was significantly slower in ET patients (649 ms) compared to HCs (526 ms; F(1,56) = 42.37; p <.001; η2 = .43), whereas proactive slowing did not differ between groups. ET patients exhibited slower stop signal reaction times (320 ms) compared to HCs (258 ms, F(1,56) = 15.3; p <.00; η2 = .22) and more severe motor symptoms of ET were associated with longer stopping latencies in a subset of patients (Spearman rho = .48; p <.05). Conclusions: In line with previous studies, ET patients showed slower action initiation. Additionally, inhibitory control was impaired whereas proactive slowing remained intact relative to HCs. More severe motor symptoms of ET were associated with slower stopping speed, and may reflect more progressive changes to the cerebellar-thalamo-cortical network. Future imaging studies should specify which structural and functional changes in ET can explain changes in inhibitory action control. (JINS, 2019, 25, 156–164)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document