The role of stop-signal probability and expectation in proactive inhibition

2015 ◽  
Vol 41 (8) ◽  
pp. 1086-1094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthijs Vink ◽  
Reinoud Kaldewaij ◽  
Bram B. Zandbelt ◽  
Pascal Pas ◽  
Stefan du Plessis
Keyword(s):  
Proactive Inhibition ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Signal Probability

scholarly journals An ERP study on proactive and reactive response inhibition in individuals with schizotypy

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu-xia Jia ◽  
Xiao-jing Qin ◽  
Ji-fang Cui ◽  
Qi Zheng ◽  
Tian-xiao Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Proactive Inhibition ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Signal Probability ◽  
Reactive Inhibition ◽  
Eeg Data ◽  
Stop Signal Reaction Time ◽  
Stop Condition

AbstractSchizotypy, a subclinical group at risk for schizophrenia, has been found to show impairments in response inhibition. However, it remains unclear whether this impairment is accompanied by outright stopping (reactive inhibition) or preparation for stopping (proactive inhibition). We recruited 20 schizotypy and 24 non-schizotypy individuals to perform a modified stop-signal task with electroencephalographic (EEG) data recorded. This task consists of three conditions based on the probability of stop signal: 0% (no stop trials, only go trials), 17% (17% stop trials), and 33% (33% stop trials), the conditions were indicated by the colour of go stimuli. For proactive inhibition (go trials), individuals with schizotypy exhibited significantly lesser increase in go response time (RT) as the stop signal probability increasing compared to non-schizotypy individuals. Individuals with schizotypy also exhibited significantly increased N1 amplitude on all levels of stop signal probability and increased P3 amplitude in the 17% stop condition compared with non-schizotypy individuals. For reactive inhibition (stop trials), individuals with schizotypy exhibited significantly longer stop signal reaction time (SSRT) in both 17% and 33% stop conditions and smaller N2 amplitude on stop trials in the 17% stop condition than non-schizotypy individuals. These findings suggest that individuals with schizotypy were impaired in both proactive and reactive response inhibition at behavioural and neural levels.

The role of response similarity in proactive inhibition.

1962 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 364-372 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kent M. Dallett
Keyword(s):  
Proactive Inhibition

The Role of Stimulus Material in Determining Release from Proactive Inhibition

1976 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 395-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Gardiner ◽  
Hilary Klee ◽  
Graham Redman ◽  
Michael Ball
Keyword(s):  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Proactive Inhibition ◽  
Stimulus Material ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Term Memory ◽  
Colour Feature ◽  
Release Data ◽  
Memory Codes ◽  
Relative Salience

The release from proactive inhibition (PI) paradigm has been widely used as a technique for exploring the encoding dimensions of short-term memory for verbal items. PI release data have been used not only to infer particular memory codes but also to index their relative salience. In the present study, the effects of manipulating the colour (red or black) in which the stimulus material is printed were investigated in two separate experiments. No release effect was obtained in the first, where common two-syllable words were presented. In the second, where consonant trigrams were presented, a large effect was found. Since the same colour feature was manipulated in each experiment, it is argued that this pattern of results has serious implications for the use of PI release data as a technique for mapping the encoding dimensions of short-term memory.

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

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.

scholarly journals Role of Frontal Eye Fields in Countermanding Saccades: Visual, Movement, and Fixation Activity

1998 ◽  
Vol 79 (2) ◽  
pp. 817-834 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doug P. Hanes ◽  
Warren F. Patterson ◽  
Jeffrey D. Schall
Keyword(s):  
Single Cells ◽  
Race Model ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Frontal Eye Fields ◽  
Gaze Control ◽  
Related Activity ◽  
Gaze Shifts ◽  
Visual Movement ◽  
Fixation Activity

Hanes, Doug P., Warren F. Patterson II, and Jeffrey D. Schall. Role of frontal eye fields in countermanding saccades: visual, movement, and fixation activity. J. Neurophysiol. 79: 817–834, 1998. A new approach was developed to investigate the role of visual-, movement-, and fixation-related neural activity in gaze control. We recorded unit activity in the frontal eye fields (FEF), an area in frontal cortex that plays a central role in the production of purposeful eye movements, of monkeys ( Macaca mulatta) performing visually and memory-guided saccades. The countermanding paradigm was employed to assess whether single cells generate signals sufficient to control movement production. The countermanding paradigm consists of a task that manipulates the monkeys' ability to withhold planned saccades combined with an analysis based on a race model that provides an estimate of the time needed to cancel the movement that is being prepared. We obtained clear evidence that FEF neurons with eye movement-related activity generate signals sufficient to control the production of gaze shifts. Movement-related activity, which was growing toward a trigger threshold as the saccades were prepared, decayed in response to the stop signal within the time required to cancel the saccade. Neurons with fixation-related activity were less common, but during the countermanding paradigm, these neurons exhibited an equally clear gaze-control signal. Fixation cells that had a pause in firing before a saccade exhibited elevated activity in response to the stop signal within the time that the saccade was cancelled. In contrast to cells with movement or fixation activity, neurons with only visually evoked activity exhibited no evidence of signals sufficient to control the production of gaze shifts. However, a fraction of tonic visual cells exhibited a reduction of activity once a saccade command had been cancelled even though the visual target was still present in the receptive field. These findings demonstrate the use of the countermanding paradigm in identifying neural signatures of motor control and provide new information about the fine balance between gaze shifting and gaze holding mechanisms.

scholarly journals Stop-Signal Reaction-Time Task Performance: Role of Prefrontal Cortex and Subthalamic Nucleus

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 178-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. M. Eagle ◽  
C. Baunez ◽  
D. M. Hutcheson ◽  
O. Lehmann ◽  
A. P. Shah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prefrontal Cortex ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Task Performance ◽  
Subthalamic Nucleus ◽  
Reaction Time Task ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Time Task ◽  
Stop Signal Reaction Time

Effects of stop-signal probability in the stop-signal paradigm: The N2/P3 complex further validated

2004 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 234-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.R. Ramautar ◽  
A. Kok ◽  
K.R. Ridderinkhof
Keyword(s):  
Stop Signal ◽  
Signal Probability

scholarly journals Handedness Does Not Impact Inhibitory Control, but Movement Execution and Reactive Inhibition Are More under a Left-Hemisphere Control

Symmetry ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 1602
Author(s):  
Christian Mancini ◽  
Giovanni Mirabella
Keyword(s):  
Left Hemisphere ◽  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Dominant Role ◽  
Hemispheric Specialization ◽  
Arm Movement ◽  
Proactive Inhibition ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
The Right

The relationship between handedness, laterality, and inhibitory control is a valuable benchmark for testing the hypothesis of the right-hemispheric specialization of inhibition. According to this theory, and given that to stop a limb movement, it is sufficient to alter the activity of the contralateral hemisphere, then suppressing a left arm movement should be faster than suppressing a right-arm movement. This is because, in the latter case, inhibitory commands produced in the right hemisphere should be sent to the other hemisphere. Further, as lateralization of cognitive functions in left-handers is less pronounced than in right-handers, in the former, the inhibitory control should rely on both hemispheres. We tested these predictions on a medium-large sample of left- and right-handers (n = 52). Each participant completed two sessions of the reaching versions of the stop-signal task, one using the right arm and one using the left arm. We found that reactive and proactive inhibition do not differ according to handedness. However, we found a significant advantage of the right versus the left arm in canceling movements outright. By contrast, there were no differences in proactive inhibition. As we also found that participants performed movements faster with the right than with the left arm, we interpret our results in light of the dominant role of the left hemisphere in some aspects of motor control.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document