Response Inhibition Deficits in Insomnia Disorder: An Event-Related Potential Study With the Stop-Signal Task

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

Alterations in the Ventral Attention Network During the Stop-Signal Task in Children With ADHD: An Event-Related Potential Source Imaging Study

Journal of Attention Disorders ◽

10.1177/1087054715580847 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 22 (7) ◽

pp. 639-650 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Tieme W. P. Janssen ◽

Dirk J. Heslenfeld ◽

Rosa van Mourik ◽

Katleen Geladé ◽

Athanasios Maras ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Response Inhibition ◽

Event Related Potentials ◽

Stop Signal ◽

Event Related Potential ◽

Anterior Cingulate ◽

Stop Signal Task ◽

Adhd Group ◽

Attention Network ◽

Children With Adhd ◽

Related Potentials

Objective: Deficits in response inhibition figure prominently in models of ADHD; however, attentional deficiencies may better explain previous findings of impaired response inhibition in ADHD. We tested this hypothesis at the neurophysiological level. Method: Dense array ERPs (event-related potentials) were obtained for 46 children with ADHD and 51 controls using the stop-signal task (SST). Early and late components were compared between groups. N2 and P3 components were localized with LAURA distributed linear inverse solution. Results: A success-related N1 modulation was only apparent in the ADHD group. N2 and P3 amplitudes were reduced in ADHD. During the successful inhibition N2, the ADHD group showed reduced activation in right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG), supplementary motor area (SMA), and right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ), and during failed inhibition in the rIFG. During the successful inhibition P3, reduced activation was found in anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and SMA. Conclusion: Impairments in the ventral attention network contribute to the psychopathology of ADHD and challenge the dominant view that ADHD is underpinned by impaired inhibitory control.

Download Full-text

Reconsidering electrophysiological markers of response inhibition in light of trigger failures in the stop-signal task

10.1101/658336 ◽

2019 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

P Skippen ◽

W. R Fulham ◽

P.T Michie ◽

D Matzke ◽

A Heathcote ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Response Inhibition ◽

Gaussian Model ◽

Stop Signal ◽

Event Related Potential ◽

Stop Signal Task ◽

Onset Latency ◽

Healthy Sample ◽

Inhibition Process ◽

Hierarchical Bayesian Methods ◽

Trigger Failure

AbstractWe investigate the neural correlates underpinning response inhibition using a parametric ex-Gaussian model of stop-signal task performance, fit with hierarchical Bayesian methods, in a large healthy sample (N=156). The parametric model accounted for trigger failure (i.e., failures to initiate the inhibition process) and returned an SSRT estimate (SSRTEXG3) that was attenuated by ≈65ms compared to traditional non-parametric SSRT estimates (SSRTint). The amplitude and latency of the N1 and P3 event related potential components were derived for both stop-success and stop-failure trials and compared to behavioural estimates derived from traditional (SSRTint) and parametric (SSRTEXG3, trigger failure) models. Both the fronto-central N1 and P3 peaked earlier and were larger for stop-success than stop-failure trials. For stop-failure trials only, N1 peak latency correlated with both SSRT estimates as well as trigger failure and temporally coincided with SSRTEXG3, but not SSRTint. In contrast, P3 peak and onset latency were not associated with any behavioural estimates of inhibition for either trial type. While overall the N1 peaked earlier for stop-success than stop-failure trials, this effect was not found in poor task performers (i.e., high trigger failure/slow SSRT). These findings are consistent with attentional modulation of both the speed and reliability of the inhibition process, but not for poor performers. Together with the absence of any P3 onset latency effect, our findings suggest that attentional mechanisms are important in supporting speeded and reliable inhibition processes required in the stop-signal task.

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