Response Inhibitory Control Varies with Different Sensory Modalities

Stopping Speed in Response to Auditory and Visual Stop Signals Depends on Go Signal Modality

Past research has found that the speed of the action cancellation process is influenced by the sensory modality of the environmental change that triggers it. However, the effect on selective stopping processes (where participants must cancel only one component of a multicomponent movement) remains unknown, despite these complex movements often being required as we navigate our busy modern world. Thirty healthy adults (mean age = 31.1 years, SD = 10.5) completed five response-selective stop signal tasks featuring different combinations of "go signal" modality (the environmental change baring an imperative to initiate movement; auditory or visual) and "stop signal" modality (the environmental change indicating that action cancellation is required: auditory, visual, or audiovisual). EMG recordings of effector muscles allowed detailed comparison of the characteristics of voluntary action and cancellation between tasks. Behavioral and physiological measures of stopping speed demonstrated that the modality of the go signal influenced how quickly participants cancelled movement in response to the stop signal: Stopping was faster in two cross-modal experimental conditions (auditory go - visual stop; visual go - auditory stop), than in two conditions using the same modality for both signals. A separate condition testing for multisensory facilitation revealed that stopping was fastest when the stop signal consisted of a combined audiovisual stimulus, compared with all other go-stop stimulus combinations. These findings provide novel evidence regarding the role of attentional networks in action cancellation and suggest modality-specific cognitive resources influence the latency of the stopping process.

A touching advantage: cross-modal stop-signals improve reactive response inhibition

The ability to inhibit an already initiated response is crucial for navigating the environment. However, it is unclear which characteristics make stop-signals more likely to be processed efficiently. In three consecutive studies, we demonstrate that stop-signal modality and location are key factors that influence reactive response inhibition. Study 1 shows that tactile stop-signals lead to better performance compared to visual stop-signals in an otherwise visual choice-reaction task. Results of Study 2 reveal that the location of the stop-signal matters. Specifically, if a visual stop-signal is presented at a different location compared to the visual go-signal, then stopping performance is enhanced. Extending these results, study 3 suggests that tactile stop-signals and location-distinct visual stop-signals retain their performance enhancing effect when visual distractors are presented at the location of the go-signal. In sum, these results confirm that stop-signal modality and location influence reactive response inhibition, even in the face of concurrent distractors. Future research may extend and generalize these findings to other cross-modal setups.

Improved response inhibition induced by attentional capture is associated with physical activity

The ability to stop a response promptly when a stop signal is presented is named response inhibition. It is generally accepted that the process of response inhibition requires a subject to pay attention to the stop instruction and then cancel the action. A wealth of converging evidence suggests that physical activity (PA) can promote response inhibition, but the potential contributions of attentional capture to the relationship between PA and response inhibition are currently unknown. In this study, the standard stop-signal task (SST) and two novel versions of the SST were used to solve this gap. A total of 58 college students were divided into a higher PA group and a lower PA group, respectively. In Experiment 1, the classical SST determined that the participants in the higher PA group displayed a significantly faster stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) than those in the lower PA group. Experiment 2 separated the attentional capture in the SST and revealed that the participants in the higher PA group could detect the signal faster than those in the lower PA group. Experiment 3 further added a stop signal to Experiment 2 and demonstrated that the participants in the higher PA group could more effectively deploy attentional resources to complete the task. Overall, these findings indicate that PA is positively associated with response inhibition and that the positive relationship is associated with effective allocation of attentional resources for faster attentional capture.