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.

scholarly journals Dynamical EEG Indices of Progressive Motor Inhibition and Error-Monitoring

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 478
Author(s):  
Trung Van Nguyen ◽  
Prasad Balachandran ◽  
Neil G. Muggleton ◽  
Wei-Kuang Liang ◽  
Chi-Hung Juan
Keyword(s):  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Control Process ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Error Processing ◽  
Alpha Power ◽  
Error Monitoring ◽  
Motor Inhibition ◽  
Hilbert Huang Transform ◽  
Time Frequency

Response inhibition has been widely explored using the stop signal paradigm in the laboratory setting. However, the mechanism that demarcates attentional capture from the motor inhibition process is still unclear. Error monitoring is also involved in the stop signal task. Error responses that do not complete, i.e., partial errors, may require different error monitoring mechanisms relative to an overt error. Thus, in this study, we included a “continue go” (Cont_Go) condition to the stop signal task to investigate the inhibitory control process. To establish the finer difference in error processing (partial vs. full unsuccessful stop (USST)), a grip-force device was used in tandem with electroencephalographic (EEG), and the time-frequency characteristics were computed with Hilbert–Huang transform (HHT). Relative to Cont_Go, HHT results reveal (1) an increased beta and low gamma power for successful stop trials, indicating an electrophysiological index of inhibitory control, (2) an enhanced theta and alpha power for full USST trials that may mirror error processing. Additionally, the higher theta and alpha power observed in partial over full USST trials around 100 ms before the response onset, indicating the early detection of error and the corresponding correction process. Together, this study extends our understanding of the finer motor inhibition control and its dynamic electrophysiological mechanisms.

scholarly journals Exploring the impact of a brief mindfulness induction on motor inhibitory control

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satish Jaiswal ◽  
Shao-Yang Tsai ◽  
Chi-Hung Juan ◽  
Wei-Kuang Liang ◽  
Neil G. Muggleton
Keyword(s):  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Mindfulness Training ◽  
Mindfulness Practice ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Motor Inhibition ◽  
Mindfulness Induction ◽  
Marginal Improvement ◽  
The Impact

AbstractInhibitory control can be divided into motor and cognitive inhibition. The current research is the first study exploring the impact of brief mindfulness training on motor inhibition, measured by a stop signal task in participants without any meditation experience. Motor inhibition performance was compared before and immediately after three different conditions; a brief mindfulness induction, a resting state and an active control session in which participants listened to their favorite music. Post-test learning effect on go-reaction times was seen for the resting and mindfulness conditions, but was absent in the music session, possibly due to emotional arousal might have led slower responses. Brief mindfulness training did not significantly alter inhibitory control, although marginal improvement in stop signal reaction time following the mindfulness induction was observed. Motor inhibition appears unresponsive to either short-term or long-term mindfulness practice. Future mindfulness studies should explore a broad spectrum of cognitive functions and populations.

scholarly journals To Go or Not to Go: Degrees of Dynamic Inhibitory Control Revealed by the Function of Grip Force and Early Electrophysiological Indices

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trung Van Nguyen ◽  
Che-Yi Hsu ◽  
Satish Jaiswal ◽  
Neil G. Muggleton ◽  
Wei-Kuang Liang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Motor Cortex ◽  
Error Correction ◽  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Primary Motor Cortex ◽  
Force Measurement ◽  
Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Source Analysis ◽  
Motor Inhibition

A critical issue in executive control is how the nervous system exerts flexibility to inhibit a prepotent response and adapt to sudden changes in the environment. In this study, force measurement was used to capture “partial” unsuccessful trials that are highly relevant in extending the current understanding of motor inhibition processing. Moreover, a modified version of the stop-signal task was used to control and eliminate potential attentional capture effects from the motor inhibition index. The results illustrate that the non-canceled force and force rate increased as a function of stop-signal delay (SSD), offering new objective indices for gauging the dynamic inhibitory process. Motor response (time and force) was a function of delay in the presentation of novel/infrequent stimuli. A larger lateralized readiness potential (LRP) amplitude in go and novel stimuli indicated an influence of the novel stimuli on central motor processing. Moreover, an early N1 component reflects an index of motor inhibition in addition to the N2 component reported in previous studies. Source analysis revealed that the activation of N2 originated from inhibitory control associated areas: the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG), pre-motor cortex, and primary motor cortex. Regarding partial responses, LRP and error-related negativity (ERNs) were associated with error correction processes, whereas the N2 component may indicate the functional overlap between inhibition and error correction. In sum, the present study has developed reliable and objective indices of motor inhibition by introducing force, force-rate and electrophysiological measures, further elucidating our understandings of dynamic motor inhibition and error correction.

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 Decomposing Decision Components in the Stop-signal Task: A Model-based Approach to Individual Differences in Inhibitory Control

2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
pp. 1601-1614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corey N. White ◽  
Eliza Congdon ◽  
Jeanette A. Mumford ◽  
Katherine H. Karlsgodt ◽  
Fred W. Sabb ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Processing Speed ◽  
Execution Time ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Motor Execution ◽  
Stimulus Processing ◽  
Model Based ◽  
The Right

The stop-signal task, in which participants must inhibit prepotent responses, has been used to identify neural systems that vary with individual differences in inhibitory control. To explore how these differences relate to other aspects of decision making, a drift-diffusion model of simple decisions was fitted to stop-signal task data from go trials to extract measures of caution, motor execution time, and stimulus processing speed for each of 123 participants. These values were used to probe fMRI data to explore individual differences in neural activation. Faster processing of the go stimulus correlated with greater activation in the right frontal pole for both go and stop trials. On stop trials, stimulus processing speed also correlated with regions implicated in inhibitory control, including the right inferior frontal gyrus, medial frontal gyrus, and BG. Individual differences in motor execution time correlated with activation of the right parietal cortex. These findings suggest a robust relationship between the speed of stimulus processing and inhibitory processing at the neural level. This model-based approach provides novel insight into the interrelationships among decision components involved in inhibitory control and raises interesting questions about strategic adjustments in performance and inhibitory deficits associated with psychopathology.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Functional MRI Reveal Cortical and Subcortical Interactions during Stop-signal Response Inhibition

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bram B. Zandbelt ◽  
Mirjam Bloemendaal ◽  
Janna Marie Hoogendam ◽  
René S. Kahn ◽  
Matthijs Vink
Keyword(s):  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Primary Motor Cortex ◽  
Functional Organization ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Reactive Inhibition ◽  
Reactive Control ◽  
Motor Complex ◽  
Repetitive Tms ◽  
The Right

Stopping an action requires suppression of the primary motor cortex (M1). Inhibitory control over M1 relies on a network including the right inferior frontal cortex (rIFC) and the supplementary motor complex (SMC), but how these regions interact to exert inhibitory control over M1 is unknown. Specifically, the hierarchical position of the rIFC and SMC with respect to each other, the routes by which these regions control M1, and the causal involvement of these regions in proactive and reactive inhibition remain unclear. We used off-line repetitive TMS to perturb neural activity in the rIFC and SMC followed by fMRI to examine effects on activation in the networks involved in proactive and reactive inhibition, as assessed with a modified stop-signal task. We found repetitive TMS effects on reactive inhibition only. rIFC and SMC stimulation shortened the stop-signal RT (SSRT) and a shorter SSRT was associated with increased M1 deactivation. Furthermore, rIFC and SMC stimulation increased right striatal activation, implicating frontostriatal pathways in reactive inhibition. Finally, rIFC stimulation altered SMC activation, but SMC stimulation did not alter rIFC activation, indicating that rIFC lies upstream from SMC. These findings extend our knowledge about the functional organization of inhibitory control, an important component of executive functioning, showing that rIFC exerts reactive control over M1 via SMC and right striatum.

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 BOLD differences normally attributed to inhibitory control predict symptoms, not task-directed inhibitory control in ADHD

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre Chevrier ◽  
Russell J. Schachar
Keyword(s):  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Error Detection ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Neural Processing ◽  
Significant Group ◽  
Significant Group Difference ◽  
Symptomatic Behavior

AbstractBackgroundAltered brain activity that has been observed in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) while performing cognitive control tasks like the stop signal task (SST), has generally been interpreted as reflecting either weak (under-active) or compensatory (over-active) versions of the same functions as in healthy controls. If so, then regional activities that correlate with the efficiency of inhibitory control (i.e. stop signal reaction time, SSRT) in healthy subjects should also correlate with SSRT in ADHD. Here we test the alternate hypothesis that BOLD differences might instead reflect the redirection of neural processing resources normally used for task-directed inhibitory control, toward actively managing symptomatic behavior. If so, then activities that correlate with SSRT in TD should instead correlate with inattentive and hyperactive symptoms in ADHD.MethodsWe used fMRI in 14 typically developing (TD) and 14 ADHD adolescents performing the SST, and in a replication sample of 14 healthy adults. First we identified significant group BOLD differences during all phases of activity in the SST (i.e. warning, response, reactive inhibition, error detection and post-error slowing). Next, we correlated these phases of activity with SSRT in TD, and with SSRT, inattentive and hyperactive symptom scores in ADHD. We then identified whole brain significant correlations in regions of significant group difference in activity.ResultsOnly three regions of significant group difference were correlated with SSRT in TD and replication groups (left and right inferior frontal gyri (IFG) during error detection, and hypothalamus during post-error slowing). Consistent with regions of altered activity managing symptomatic behavior instead of task-directed behavior, left IFG correlated with greater inattentive score, right IFG correlated with lower hyperactive score, and hypothalamus correlated with greater inattentive score and oppositely correlated with SSRT compared to TD.ConclusionsResults are consistent with stimuli that elicit task-directed integration of neural processing in healthy subjects, instead directing integrated function towards managing symptomatic behavior in ADHD. The ability of the current approach to determine whether altered neural activities reflect comparable functions in ADHD and control groups has broad implications for the development and monitoring of therapeutic interventions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document