Effects of a Cognitive-Motor Training on Anticipatory Brain Functions and Sport Performance in Semi-Elite Basketball Players

The aim of this research was to test the possible effects of cognitive–motor training (CMT) on athletes’ sport performance and cognitive functions. Namely, specific athletic tests, brain processes associated with anticipatory event-related potential (ERP) components and behavioral performance during a cognitive discrimination response task were evaluated pre- and post-training. Twenty-four young semi-professional basketball players were recruited for the study and randomly divided into an experimental (Exp) group executing the CMT training and a control (Con) group performing standard motor training. The CMT training protocol included exercises in which participants performed cognitive tasks during dribbling exercises using interactive devices which emitted visual and auditory stimuli, in which athletes’ responses were recorded. Results showed that following training, only the Exp group improved in all sport-specific tests (17%) and more than the Con group (88% vs. 60%) in response accuracy during the cognitive test. At brain level, post-training anticipatory cognitive processes associated with proactive inhibition and top-down attention in the prefrontal cortex were earlier and heightened in the Exp group. Our findings confirm previous studies on clear improved efficacy of CMT training protocols on sport performance and cognition compared to training based on motor exercises only, but extend the literature in showing that these effects might be explained by enhanced anticipatory brain processing in the prefrontal cortex. The present study also suggests that in order to achieve specific athletic goals, the brain adapts cognitive functions by means of neuroplasticity processes.

The impact of L2 proficiency on cross-language influence during L2 word processing

We investigated the relationship between L2 proficiency and the language control strategies employed during L2 word-processing to cope with cross-language interference. Our main hypothesis is that proactive inhibition of the non-target language (L1) is the best cognitive strategy to optimise L2 performance when L1 and L2 lexical/phonological representations do not overlap. This strategy should be especially implemented by L2 high proficient individuals. We tested a group of native speakers of Chinese (L1) with various levels of proficiency in L2 English in a task that required to decide whether English words presented in pairs were related in meaning or not. Crucially, L2 learners were unaware of the fact that half of the words concealed a character repetition when translated into Chinese which allowed us to measure the activation of L1 phonological representations. Contrary to our predictions, we found that higher proficiency correlated with higher L1 activation.

The impact of L2 proficiency on cross-language influence during L2 word processing

We investigated the relationship between L2 proficiency and the language control strategies employed during L2 word-processing to cope with cross-language interference. Our main hypothesis is that proactive inhibition of the non-target language (L1) is the best cognitive strategy to optimise L2 performance when L1 and L2 lexical/phonological representations do not overlap. This strategy should be especially implemented by L2 high proficient individuals. We tested a group of native speakers of Chinese (L1) with various levels of proficiency in L2 English in a task that required to decide whether English words presented in pairs were related in meaning or not. Crucially, L2 learners were unaware of the fact that half of the words concealed a character repetition when translated into Chinese which allowed us to measure the activation of L1 phonological representations. Contrary to our predictions, we found that higher proficiency correlated with higher L1 activation.

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

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.

Electrophysiological correlates of proactive and reactive inhibition in a modified visual Go/NoGo task

Impulse control is crucial for everyday functioning in modern society. People with borderline personality disorder (BPD) suffer from impulse control impairment. According to the theory of dual mechanisms of control, motor impulse control can be divided into proactive and reactive modes. Proactive inhibition is involved before the event that might require inhibitory control. Reactive inhibition is initiated after the occurrence of the event that requires inhibitory control. Few studies focused on proactive inhibition in relation to impaired impulse control, moreover electrophysiological evidence is scarce. Therefore, in search for electrophysiological correlates of proactive and reactive inhibitions, we assessed event-related potentials elicited during a modified emotionally neutral visual Go/NoGo task in 28 clinically impulsive BPD patients and 35 healthy control (HC) subjects. In both groups, proactive inhibition was associated with enhanced late prestimulus activity and suppressed poststimulus N2 component. In both groups, reactive inhibition was associated with enhanced poststimulus N2 and P3 components. We found no electrophysiological differences between HC subjects and BPD patients and both groups performed similarly in the task. Hence, the clinically observed impulse control impairment in the BPD might act through different mechanisms other than altered inhibitory control in an emotionally neutral task.

Preparing to React: A Behavioral Study on the Interplay between Proactive and Reactive Action Inhibition

Motor preparation, based on one’s goals and expectations, allows for prompt reactions to stimulations from the environment. Proactive and reactive inhibitory mechanisms modulate this preparation and interact to allow a flexible control of responses. In this study, we investigate these two control mechanisms with an ad hoc cued Go/NoGo Simon paradigm in a within-subjects design, and by measuring subliminal motor activities through electromyographic recordings. Go cues instructed participants to prepare a response and wait for target onset to execute it (Go target) or inhibit it (NoGo target). Proactive inhibition keeps the prepared response in check, hence preventing false alarms. Preparing the cue-coherent effector in advance speeded up responses, even when it turned out to be the incorrect effector and reactive inhibition was needed to perform the action with the contralateral one. These results suggest that informative cues allow for the investigation of the interaction between proactive and reactive action inhibition. Partial errors’ analysis suggests that their appearance in compatible conflict-free trials depends on cue type and prior preparatory motor activity. Motor preparation plays a key role in determining whether proactive inhibition is needed to flexibly control behavior, and it should be considered when investigating proactive/reactive inhibition.

Early changes in corticomotor excitability underlie proactive inhibitory control of error correction

Converging evidence indicates that response inhibition may arise from the interaction of effortful proactive and reflexive reactive mechanisms. However, the distinction between the neural basis sustaining proactive and reactive inhibitory processes is still unclear. To identify reliable neural markers of proactive inhibition, we examined the behavioral and electrophysiological correlates elicited by manipulating the degree of inhibitory control in a task that involved the detection and amendment of errors. Restraining or encouraging the correction of errors did not affect the time course of the behavioral and neural correlates associated to reactive inhibition. We rather found that a bilateral and sustained decrease of corticomotor excitability was required for an effective proactive inhibitory control, whereas selective strategies were associated with defective response suppression. Our results provide behavioral and electrophysiological conclusive evidence of a comprehensive proactive inhibitory mechanism, with a distinctive underlying neural basis, governing the commission and amendment of errors. Together, these findings hint at a decisive role for changes in corticomotor excitability in determining whether an action will be successfully suppressed.

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

Schizotypy, 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.

Adjustments to Proactive Motor Inhibition without Effector-Specific Foreknowledge Are Reflected in a Bilateral Upregulation of Sensorimotor β-Burst Rates

Classic work using the stop-signal task has shown that humans can use inhibitory control to cancel already initiated movements. Subsequent work revealed that inhibitory control can be proactively recruited in anticipation of a potential stop-signal, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful movement cancellation. However, the exact neurophysiological effects of proactive inhibitory control on the motor system are still unclear. On the basis of classic views of sensorimotor β-band activity, as well as recent findings demonstrating the burst-like nature of this signal, we recently proposed that proactive inhibitory control is implemented by influencing the rate of sensorimotor β-bursts during movement initiation. Here, we directly tested this hypothesis using scalp EEG recordings of β-band activity in 41 healthy human adults during a bimanual RT task. By comparing motor responses made in two different contexts—during blocks with or without stop-signals—we found that premovement β-burst rates over both contralateral and ipsilateral sensorimotor areas were increased in stop-signal blocks compared to pure-go blocks. Moreover, the degree of this burst rate difference indexed the behavioral implementation of proactive inhibition (i.e., the degree of anticipatory response slowing in the stop-signal blocks). Finally, exploratory analyses showed that these condition differences were explained by a significant increase in β bursting that was already present during baseline period before the movement initiation signal. Together, this suggests that the strategic deployment of proactive inhibitory motor control is implemented by upregulating the tonic inhibition of the motor system, signified by increased sensorimotor β-bursting both before and after signals to initiate a movement.