scholarly journals Go-activation endures following the presentation of a stop-signal: evidence from startle

2017 ◽  
Vol 117 (1) ◽  
pp. 403-411
Author(s):  
Neil M. Drummond ◽  
Erin K. Cressman ◽  
Anthony N. Carlsen
Keyword(s):  
Acoustic Stimulus ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Overt Response ◽  
Control Behavior ◽  
Startling Acoustic Stimulus ◽  
Increase In Probability ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All

It has been proposed that, in a stop-signal task (SST), independent go- and stop-processes “race” to control behavior. If the go-process wins, an overt response is produced, whereas, if the stop-process wins, the response is withheld. One prediction that follows from this proposal is that, if the activation associated with one process is enhanced, it is more likely to win the race. We looked to determine whether these initiation and inhibition processes (and thus response outcomes) could be manipulated by using a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), which has been shown to provide additional response activation. In the present study, participants were to respond to a visual go-stimulus; however, if a subsequent stop-signal appeared, they were to inhibit the response. The stop-signal was presented at a delay corresponding to a probability of responding of 0.4 (determined from a baseline block of trials). On stop-trials, a SAS was presented either simultaneously with the go-signal or stop-signal or 100, 150, or 200 ms following the stop-signal. Results showed that presenting a SAS during stop-trials led to an increase in probability of responding when presented with or following the stop-signal. The latency of SAS responses at the stop-signal + 150 ms and stop-signal + 200 ms probe times suggests that they would have been voluntarily inhibited but instead were involuntarily initiated by the SAS. Thus results demonstrate that go-activation endures even 200 ms following a stop-signal and remains accessible well after the response has been inhibited, providing evidence against a winner-take-all race between independent go- and stop-processes. NEW & NOTEWORTHY In this study, a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) was used to determine whether response outcome could be manipulated in a stop-signal task. Results revealed that presenting a SAS during stop-signal trials led to an increase in probability of responding even when presented 200 ms following the stop-signal. The latency of SAS responses indicates that go-activation remains accessible and modifiable well after the response is voluntarily inhibited, providing evidence against an irrevocable commitment to inhibition.

scholarly journals Startle reveals decreased response preparatory activation during a stop-signal task

2016 ◽  
Vol 116 (3) ◽  
pp. 986-994 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil M. Drummond ◽  
Erin K. Cressman ◽  
Anthony N. Carlsen
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Motor Response ◽  
Acoustic Stimulus ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Short Latency ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Activation Level ◽  
Startling Acoustic Stimulus ◽  
Simple Rt

In a stop-signal task participants are instructed to initiate a movement in response to a go signal, but to inhibit this movement if an infrequent stop signal is presented after the go. Reaction time (RT) in a stop-signal task is typically longer compared with that in a simple RT task, which may be attributed to a reduced readiness to initiate the response caused by the possibility of having to inhibit the response. The purpose of this experiment was to probe the preparatory activation level of the motor response during a stop-signal task using a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), which has been shown to involuntarily trigger sufficiently prepared responses at a short latency. Participants completed two separate tasks: a simple RT task, followed by a stop-signal RT task. During both tasks, an SAS (120 dB) was pseudorandomly presented concurrently with the go signal. As expected, RT during the simple RT task was significantly shorter than during the stop-signal task. A significant reduction in RT was noted when an SAS was presented during the simple RT task; however, during the stop-signal task, an SAS resulted in either a significant speeding or a moderate delay in RT. Additionally, the subset of SAS trial responses with the shortest RT latencies produced during the stop-signal task were also delayed compared with the short-latency SAS trial responses observed during the simple RT task. Despite evidence that a response was prepared in advance of the go signal during a stop-signal task, it appears that the amount of preparatory activation was reduced compared with that achieved during a simple RT task.

Superstars, Winner-Take-All Markets and Economic Growth

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baochun Peng
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All

The Draw Index: A Measure of Competition for Winner-Take-All Elections

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Rose
Keyword(s):  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All

Low-Offset Neural Winner-take-all Network

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Volnei A. Pedroni
Keyword(s):  
Low Offset ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All

scholarly journals Inhibitory Control on a Stop Signal Task in Tourette Syndrome before and after Deep Brain Stimulation of the Internal Segment of the Globus Pallidus

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 461
Author(s):  
Francesca Morreale ◽  
Zinovia Kefalopoulou ◽  
Ludvic Zrinzo ◽  
Patricia Limousin ◽  
Eileen Joyce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Tourette Syndrome ◽  
Globus Pallidus ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Reactive Inhibition ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Deep Brain

As part of the first randomized double-blind trial of deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the globus pallidus (GPi) in Tourette syndrome, we examined the effect of stimulation on response initiation and inhibition. A total of 14 patients with severe Tourette syndrome were recruited and tested on the stop signal task prior to and after GPi-DBS surgery and compared to eight age-matched healthy controls. Tics were significantly improved following GPi-DBS. The main measure of reactive inhibition, the stop signal reaction time did not change from before to after surgery and did not differ from that of healthy controls either before or after GPi-DBS surgery. This suggests that patients with Tourette syndrome have normal reactive inhibition which is not significantly altered by GPi-DBS.

scholarly journals Is motor inhibition involved in the processing of sentential negation? An assessment via the Stop-Signal Task

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Montalti ◽  
Marta Calbi ◽  
Valentina Cuccio ◽  
Maria Alessandra Umiltà ◽  
Vittorio Gallese
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Motor Inhibition ◽  
Good Tool ◽  
Scientific Debate ◽  
Sentential Negation ◽  
Stop Signal Reaction Time ◽  
Methodological Considerations

AbstractIn the last decades, the embodied approach to cognition and language gained momentum in the scientific debate, leading to evidence in different aspects of language processing. However, while the bodily grounding of concrete concepts seems to be relatively not controversial, abstract aspects, like the negation logical operator, are still today one of the main challenges for this research paradigm. In this framework, the present study has a twofold aim: (1) to assess whether mechanisms for motor inhibition underpin the processing of sentential negation, thus, providing evidence for a bodily grounding of this logic operator, (2) to determine whether the Stop-Signal Task, which has been used to investigate motor inhibition, could represent a good tool to explore this issue. Twenty-three participants were recruited in this experiment. Ten hand-action-related sentences, both in affirmative and negative polarity, were presented on a screen. Participants were instructed to respond as quickly and accurately as possible to the direction of the Go Stimulus (an arrow) and to withhold their response when they heard a sound following the arrow. This paradigm allows estimating the Stop Signal Reaction Time (SSRT), a covert reaction time underlying the inhibitory process. Our results show that the SSRT measured after reading negative sentences are longer than after reading affirmative ones, highlighting the recruitment of inhibitory mechanisms while processing negative sentences. Furthermore, our methodological considerations suggest that the Stop-Signal Task is a good paradigm to assess motor inhibition’s role in the processing of sentence negation.

scholarly journals Effect of obesity on inhibitory control in preadolescents during stop-signal task. An event-related potentials study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graciela C. Alatorre-Cruz ◽  
Heather Downs ◽  
Darcy Hagood ◽  
Seth T. Sorensen ◽  
D. Keith Williams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Related Potentials

scholarly journals Cortical silent period reflects individual differences in action stopping performance

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.

Interest Groups and Elections

2019 ◽  
pp. 339-357
Author(s):  
Jeffrey M. Berry
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Organizational Forms ◽  
Super Pacs ◽  
New Organizational Forms ◽  
Winner Take All ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Take All

The relationships between interest groups, political parties, and elections have always been dynamic, but in recent years change has accelerated in ways that have favored some interests over others. This chapter considers these developments as the result of a variety of factors, the most critical of which are the growth of polarization, a new legal landscape for campaign finance, and new organizational forms. The chapter goes on to suggest, that as bipartisanship has ebbed, elections have become winner-take-all affairs and interest groups are pushed to choose sides. The chapter further suggests that the rise of super PACs is especially notable as wealthy individuals have become increasingly important, single sources of campaign money, supplanting in part traditional interest groups, especially conventional PACs. It concludes that even as sums spent by super PACs and other interest groups have skyrocketed, the impact of their direct spending on persuading voters remains uncertain.

On the Winner-Take-All Principle in Innovation Races

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Denicolò ◽  
Luigi A. Franzoni
Keyword(s):  
Winner Take All ◽  
Take All
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document