Differences in unity: the go/no-go and stop signal tasks rely on different inhibitory mechanisms

AbstractResponse inhibition refers to the suppression of prepared or initiated actions. Typically, the go/no-go task (GNGT) or the stop signal task (SST) are used interchangeably to capture individual differences in response inhibition. Yet, there is some controversy if these tasks assess similar inhibitory processes. We extracted the time-courses of sensory, motor, attentional, and cognitive control networks by group independent component (G-ICA) analysis of electroencephalography (EEG) data from both tasks. Additionally, electromyography (EMG) from the responding effector muscles was recorded to detect the timing of response inhibition. The results indicated that inhibitory performance in the GNGT may be comparable to response selection mechanisms, reaching peripheral muscles at around 316 ms. In contrast, inhibitory performance in the SST is achieved via biasing of the sensory-motor system in preparation for stopping, followed by fast sensory, motor and frontal integration during outright stopping. Inhibition can be detected at the peripheral level at 140 ms after stop stimulus presentation. The GNGT and the SST therefore seem to recruit widely different neural dynamics, implying that the interchangeable use of superficially similar inhibition tasks in both basic and clinical research is unwarranted.

Download Full-text

Stimulation of the Subthalamic Region Facilitates the Selection and Inhibition of Motor Responses in Parkinson's Disease

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience ◽

10.1162/jocn.2006.18.4.626 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 18 (4) ◽

pp. 626-636 ◽

Cited By ~ 164

Author(s):

Wery P. M. van den Wildenberg ◽

Geert J. M. van Boxtel ◽

Maurits W. van der Molen ◽

D. Andries Bosch ◽

Johannes D. Speelman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Parkinson’S Disease ◽

Parkinson's Disease ◽

Basal Ganglia ◽

Response Inhibition ◽

Response Selection ◽

Stop Signal ◽

Stop Signal Task ◽

Motor Responses ◽

Two Samples ◽

Ventral Intermediate Nucleus

The aim of the present study was to specify the involvement of the basal ganglia in motor response selection and response inhibition. Two samples were studied. The first sample consisted of patients diagnosed with Parkinson's disease (PD) who received deep-brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN). The second sample consisted of patients who received DBS for the treatment of PD or essential tremor (ET) in the ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus (Vim). Stop-signal task and go/no-go task performances were studied in both groups. Both groups performed these tasks with (on stimulation) and without (off stimulation) DBS to address the question of whether stimulation is effective in improving choice reaction time (RT) and stop-signal RT. The results show that DBS of the STN was associated with significantly enhanced inhibitory control, as indicated by shorter stop-signal RTs. An additional finding is that DBS of the STN led to significantly shorter choice RT. The effects of DBS on responding and response inhibition were functionally independent. Although DBS of the Vim did not systematically affect task performance in patients with ET, a subgroup of Vim-stimulated PD patients showed enhanced stop-signal RTs in on stimulation versus off stimulation. This result suggests that the change in performance to stop signals may not be directly related to STN function, but rather results from a change in PD function due to DBS in general. The findings are discussed in terms of current functional and neurobiological models that relate basal ganglia function to the selection and inhibition of motor responses.

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