Mouse Tracking to Explore Motor Inhibition Processes in Go/No-Go and Stop Signal Tasks

Response inhibition relies on both proactive and reactive mechanisms that exert a synergic control on goal-directed actions. It is typically evaluated by the go/no-go (GNG) and the stop signal task (SST) with response recording based on the key-press method. However, the analysis of discrete variables (i.e., present or absent responses) registered by key-press could be insufficient to capture dynamic aspects of inhibitory control. Trying to overcome this limitation, in the present study we used a mouse tracking procedure to characterize movement profiles related to proactive and reactive inhibition. A total of fifty-three participants performed a cued GNG and an SST. The cued GNG mainly involves proactive control whereas the reactive component is mainly engaged in the SST. We evaluated the velocity profile from mouse trajectories both for responses obtained in the Go conditions and for inhibitory failures. Movements were classified as one-shot when no corrections were observed. Multi-peaked velocity profiles were classified as non-one-shot. A higher proportion of one-shot movements was found in the SST compared to the cued GNG when subjects failed to inhibit responses. This result suggests that proactive control may be responsible for unsmooth profiles in inhibition failures, supporting a differentiation between these tasks.

Download Full-text

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

Brain Sciences ◽

10.3390/brainsci11040461 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

Psychological Research ◽

10.1007/s00426-021-01512-7 ◽

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.

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

Levodopa medication does not influence motor inhibition or conflict resolution in a conditional stop-signal task in Parkinson’s disease

Experimental Brain Research ◽

10.1007/s00221-011-2793-x ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 213 (4) ◽

pp. 435-445 ◽

Cited By ~ 47

Author(s):

Ignacio Obeso ◽

Leonora Wilkinson ◽

Marjan Jahanshahi

Keyword(s):

Parkinson’S Disease ◽

Parkinson's Disease ◽

Conflict Resolution ◽

Stop Signal ◽

Stop Signal Task ◽

Motor Inhibition

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience ◽

10.1162/jocn_a_00309 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 25 (2) ◽

pp. 157-174 ◽

Cited By ~ 65

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.

Download Full-text

Stopping a response has global or nonglobal effects on the motor system depending on preparation

Journal of Neurophysiology ◽

10.1152/jn.00704.2011 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 107 (1) ◽

pp. 384-392 ◽

Cited By ~ 50

Author(s):

Ian Greenhouse ◽

Caitlin L. Oldenkamp ◽

Adam R. Aron

Keyword(s):

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽

Motor Cortex ◽

Magnetic Stimulation ◽

Motor System ◽

Primary Motor Cortex ◽

Stop Signal ◽

Stop Signal Task ◽

Proactive Control ◽

The Subject ◽

Do So

Much research has focused on how people stop initiated response tendencies when instructed by a signal. Stopping of this kind appears to have global effects on the motor system. For example, by delivering transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the leg area of the primary motor cortex, it is possible to detect suppression in the leg when the hand is being stopped (Badry R et al. Suppression of human cortico-motoneuronal excitability during the stop-signal task. Clin Neurophysiol 120: 1717–1723, 2009). Here, we asked if such “global suppression” can be observed proactively, i.e., when people anticipate they might have to stop. We used a conditional stop signal task, which allows the measurement of both an “anticipation phase” (i.e., where proactive control is applied) and a “stopping” phase. TMS was delivered during the anticipation phase ( experiment 1) and also during the stopping phase ( experiments 1 and 2) to measure leg excitability. During the anticipation phase, we did not observe leg suppression, but we did during the stopping phase, consistent with Badry et al. (2009) . Moreover, when we split the subject groups into those who slowed down behaviorally (i.e., exercised proactive control) and those who did not, we found that subjects who slowed did not show leg suppression when they stopped, whereas those who did not slow did show leg suppression when they stopped. These results suggest that if subjects prepare to stop, then they do so without global effects on the motor system. Thus, preparation allows them to stop more selectively.

Download Full-text

Proactive and Reactive Motor Inhibition in Top Athletes Versus Nonathletes

Perceptual and Motor Skills ◽

10.1177/0031512517751751 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 125 (2) ◽

pp. 289-312 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Damien Brevers ◽

Etienne Dubuisson ◽

Fabien Dejonghe ◽

Julien Dutrieux ◽

Mathieu Petieau ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Reaction Time ◽

Response Inhibition ◽

Motor Response ◽

Proactive Inhibition ◽

Stop Signal ◽

Stop Signal Task ◽

Reactive Inhibition ◽

Stop Signal Reaction Time ◽

Motor Response Inhibition ◽

Inhibition Performance

We examined proactive (early restraint in preparation for stopping) and reactive (late correction to stop ongoing action) motor response inhibition in two groups of participants: professional athletes ( n = 28) and nonathletes ( n = 25). We recruited the elite athletes from Belgian national taekwondo and fencing teams. We estimated proactive and reactive inhibition with a modified version of the stop-signal task (SST) in which participants inhibited categorizing left/right arrows. The probability of the stop signal was manipulated across blocks of trials by providing probability cues from the background computer screen color (green = 0%, yellow =17%, orange = 25%, red = 33%). Participants performed two sessions of the SST, where proactive inhibition was operationalized with increased go-signal reaction time as a function of increased stop-signal probability and reactive inhibition was indicated by stop-signal reaction time latency. Athletes exhibited higher reactive inhibition performance than nonathletes. In addition, athletes exhibited higher proactive inhibition than nonathletes in Session 1 (but not Session 2) of the SST. As top-level athletes exhibited heightened reactive inhibition and were faster to reach and maintain consistent proactive motor response inhibition, these results confirm an evaluative process that can discriminate elite athleticism through a fine-grained analysis of inhibitory control.

Download Full-text

Dynamical EEG Indices of Progressive Motor Inhibition and Error-Monitoring

Brain Sciences ◽

10.3390/brainsci11040478 ◽

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.

Download Full-text