Stop the Presses

Selective cancellation of reactive or anticipated movements: Differences in speed of action reprogramming, but not stopping

The ability to inhibit movements is an essential component of a healthy executive control system. Two distinct but commonly used tasks to assess motor inhibition are the stop signal task (SST) and the anticipated response inhibition (ARI) task. The SST and ARI tasks are similar in that they both require cancelation of a prepotent movement; however, the SST involves cancelation of a speeded reaction to a temporally unpredictable signal, while the ARI task involves cancelation of an anticipated response that the participant has prepared to enact at a wholly predictable time. 33 participants (mean age = 33.3 years, range = 18-55 years) completed variants of the SST and ARI task. In each task, the majority of trials required bimanual button presses, while on a subset of trials a stop signal indicated that one of the presses should be cancelled (i.e., motor selective inhibition). Additional variants of the tasks also included trials featuring signals which were to be ignored, allowing for insights into the attentional component of the inhibitory response. Electromyographic (EMG) recordings allowed detailed comparison of the characteristics of voluntary action and cancellation. The speed of the inhibitory process was not influenced by whether the enacted movement was reactive (SST) or anticipated (ARI task). However, the ongoing (non-cancelled) component of anticipated movements was more efficient than reactive movements, as a result of faster action reprogramming (i.e., faster ongoing actions following successful motor selective inhibition). Older age was associated with both slower inhibition and slower action reprogramming across all reactive and anticipated tasks.

Stop affordance task: a measure of the motor interference effect

The term affordance refers to the property or quality of an object that indicates the ways in which it could potentially be used. Affordances elicit automatic motor representations that sometimes differ from the current action representation, resulting in behavioural interference effects. This affordance-induces interference could result in automatic and involuntary behavioural inhibition, probably according to the same mechanism that controls the voluntary motor inhibition. Nevertheless, few studies have considered how voluntary response inhibition is modulated by affordance. In this study, we assess the effect of affordance on voluntary action inhibition using a stop-signal task with an affordance object as a Stop Signal. An image of a mug, with the handle orientated in the same or in the opposite direction of the hand recruited to respond at the target, was used as Stop Signal. Our results showed a reduction of the time necessary to withhold the response when the handle of the mug was pointed toward the hand pre-activated to respond. This effect indicates an increased inhibition due to the mismatch between the motor representation elicited by the affordance and the motor representation pre-activated by the target. This suggests a specific interference effect, reflected in an enhanced ability to inhibit an ongoing action.

Corticospinal excitability reductions during action preparation and action stopping in humans: Different sides of the same inhibitory coin?

Motor functions and cognitive processes are closely associated with each other. In humans, this linkage is reflected in motor system state changes both when an action must be prepared and stopped. Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation showed that both action preparation and action stopping are accompanied by a reduction of corticospinal excitability, referred to as preparatory and response inhibition, respectively. While previous efforts have been made to describe both phenomena extensively, an updated and comprehensive comparison of the two phenomena is lacking. To ameliorate such deficit, this review focuses on the role and interpretation of single-coil (single-pulse and paired-pulse) and dual-coil TMS outcome measures during action preparation and action stopping in humans. To that effect, it aims to identify commonalities and differences, detailing how TMS-based outcome measures are affected by states, traits, and psychopathologies in both processes. Eventually, findings will be compared, and open questions will be addressed to aid future research.

A unified account of simple and response-selective inhibition

Response inhibition is a key attribute of human executive control. Standard stop-signal tasks require countermanding a single response; the speed at which that response can be inhibited indexes the efficacy of the inhibitory control networks. However, more complex stopping tasks, where one or more components of a multi-component action are cancelled (i.e., response-selective stopping) cannot be explained by the independent-race model appropriate for the simple task (Logan and Cowan 1984). Healthy human participants (n=28; 10 male; 19-40 years) completed a response-selective stopping task where a 'go' stimulus required simultaneous (bimanual) button presses in response to left and right pointing green arrows. On a subset of trials (30%) one, or both, arrows turned red (constituting the stop signal) requiring that only the button-press(es) associated with red arrows be cancelled. Electromyographic recordings from both index fingers (first dorsal interosseous) permitted the assessment of both voluntary motor responses that resulted in overt button presses, and activity that was cancelled prior to an overt response (i.e., partial, or covert, responses). We propose a simultaneously inhibit and start (SIS) model that extends the independent race model and provides a highly accurate account of response-selective stopping data. Together with fine-grained EMG analysis, our model-based analysis offers converging evidence that the selective-stop signal simultaneously triggers a process that stops the bimanual response and triggers a new unimanual response corresponding to the green arrow. Our results require a reconceptualisation of response-selective stopping and offer a tractable framework for assessing such tasks in healthy and patient populations. Significance Statement Response inhibition is a key attribute of human executive control, frequently investigated using the stop-signal task. After initiating a motor response to a go signal, a stop signal occasionally appears at a delay, requiring cancellation of the response. This has been conceptualised as a 'race' between the go and stop processes, with the successful (or failed) cancellation determined by which process wins the race. Here we provide a novel computational model for a complex variation of the stop-signal task, where only one component of a multicomponent action needs to be cancelled. We provide compelling muscle activation data that support our model, providing a robust and plausible framework for studying these complex inhibition tasks in both healthy and pathological cohorts.

Proactive cues facilitate faster action reprogramming, but not stopping, in a response-selective stop signal task

The ability to stop simple ongoing actions has been extensively studied using the stop signal task, but less is known about inhibition in more complex scenarios. Here we used a task requiring bimanual responses to go stimuli, but selective inhibition of only one of those responses following a stop signal. We assessed how proactive cues affect the nature of both the responding and stopping processes, and the well-documented stopping delay (interference effect) in the continuing action following successful stopping. In this task, estimates of the speed of inhibition based on a simple-stopping model are inappropriate, and have produced inconsistent findings about the effects of proactive control on motor inhibition. We instead used a multi-modal approach, based on improved methods of detecting and interpreting partial electromyographical responses and the recently proposed SIS (simultaneously inhibit and start) model of selective stopping behaviour. Our results provide clear and converging evidence that proactive cues reduce the stopping delay effect by slowing bimanual responses and speeding unimanual responses, with a negligible effect on the speed of the stopping process.

A global pause generates nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping

Selective response inhibition may be required when stopping a part of a multicomponent action. A persistent response delay (stopping-interference effect) indicates nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping. This study aimed to elucidate whether nonselective response inhibition is the consequence of a global pause process during attentional capture or specific to a nonselective cancel process during selective stopping. Twenty healthy human participants performed a bimanual anticipatory response inhibition paradigm with selective stop and ignore signals. Frontocentral and sensorimotor beta-bursts were recorded with electroencephalography. Corticomotor excitability and short-interval intracortical inhibition in primary motor cortex were recorded with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Behaviorally, responses in the non-signaled hand were delayed during selective ignore and stop trials. The response delay was largest during selective stop trials and indicated that stopping-interference could not be attributed entirely to attentional capture. A stimulus-nonselective increase in frontocentral beta-bursts occurred during stop and ignore trials. Sensorimotor response inhibition was reflected in maintenance of beta-bursts and short-interval intracortical inhibition relative to disinhibition observed during go trials. Response inhibition signatures were not associated with the magnitude of stopping-interference. Therefore, nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping results primarily from a nonselective pause process but does not entirely account for the stopping-interference effect.

Dissociable effects of positive feedback on the capture and inhibition of impulsive behavior in adolescents with ADHD versus typically developing adolescents

The present study investigated how enhancing motivation by delivering positive feedback (a smiley) after a successful trial could affect interference control in adolescents with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and in their typically developing (TD) peers. By using a Simon task within the theoretical framework of the "activation-suppression" model, we were able to separately investigate the expression and the inhibition of impulsive motor behavior. The experiment included 19 adolescents with ADHD and 20 TD adolescents in order to explore whether data found in adolescents with ADHD were similar to those found in TD adolescents. Participants performed the Simon task in two conditions: a condition with feedback delivered after each successful trial and a condition with no feedback. The main findings were that increasing motivation by delivering positive feedback increased impulsive response in both groups of adolescents. It also improved the efficiency of impulsive motor action inhibition in adolescents with ADHD but deteriorated it in TD adolescents. We suggest that 1/increased motivation could lead adolescents to favor fast responses even if incorrect, and 2/the differential effect of feedback on the selective suppression of impulsive motor action in both groups could be due to different baseline DA levels.

Dual-action benefits: global (action-inherent) and local (transient) sources of action prepotency underlying inhibition failures in multiple action control

Previous research has shown that the simultaneous execution of two actions (instead of only one) is not necessarily more difficult but can actually be easier (less error-prone), in particular when executing one action requires the simultaneous inhibition of another action. Corresponding inhibitory demands are particularly challenging when the to-be-inhibited action is highly prepotent (i.e., characterized by a strong urge to be executed). Here, we study a range of important potential sources of such prepotency. Building on a previously established paradigm to elicit dual-action benefits, participants responded to stimuli with single actions (either manual button press or saccade) or dual actions (button press and saccade). Crucially, we compared blocks in which these response demands were randomly intermixed (mixed blocks) with pure blocks involving only one type of response demand. The results highlight the impact of global (action-inherent) sources of action prepotency, as reflected in more pronounced inhibitory failures in saccade vs. manual control, but also more local (transient) sources of influence, as reflected in a greater probability of inhibition failures following trials that required the to-be-inhibited type of action. In addition, sequential analyses revealed that inhibitory control (including its failure) is exerted at the level of response modality representations, not at the level of fully specified response representations. In sum, the study highlights important preconditions and mechanisms underlying the observation of dual-action benefits.

Restart errors reaction time of a two-step inhibition process account for the violation of the race model's independence in multi-effector selective stop signal task

Goal-oriented actions often require the coordinated movement of two or more effectors. Sometimes multi-effector movements need to be adjusted according to a continuously changing environment, requiring stopping an effector without interrupting the movement of the others. This form of control has been investigated by the selective Stop Signal Task (SST), requiring the inhibition of an effector of a multicomponent action. This form of selective inhibition has been hypothesized to act through a two-step process, where a temporary global inhibition deactivating all the ongoing motor responses is followed by a restarting process that reactivates only the moving effector. When this form of inhibition takes place, the reaction time (RT) of the moving effector pays the cost of the previous global inhibition. However, it is poorly investigated if and how this cost delays the RT of the effector that was required to be stopped but was erroneously moved (Stop Error trials). Here we measure the Stop Error RT in a group of participants instructed to simultaneously rotate the wrist and lift the foot when a Go Signal occurred, and interrupt both movements (non-selective Stop version) or only one of them (selective Stop version) when a Stop Signal was presented. We presented this task in two experimental conditions to evaluate how different contexts can influence a possible proactive inhibition on the RT of the moving effector in the selective Stop versions. In one context, we provided the foreknowledge of the effector to be inhibited by presenting the same selective or non-selective Stop versions in the same block of trials. In a different context, while providing no foreknowledge of the effector(s) to be stopped, the selective and non-selective Stop versions were intermingled, and the information on the effector to be stopped was delivered at the time of the Stop Signal presentation. We detected a cost in both Correct and Error selective Stop RTs that was influenced by the different task conditions. Results are discussed within the framework of the race model related to the SST, and its relationship with a restart model developed for selective versions of this paradigm.

Proactive Interhemispheric Disinhibition Supports Response Preparation during Selective Stopping

Response inhibition is essential for terminating inappropriate actions. A substantial response delay may occur in the nonstopped effector when only part of a multieffector action is terminated. This stopping-interference effect has been attributed to nonselective response inhibition processes and can be reduced with proactive cuing. This study aimed to elucidate the role of interhemispheric primary motor cortex (M1-M1) influences during selective stopping with proactive cuing. We hypothesized that stopping-interference would be reduced as stopping certainty increased because of proactive recruitment of interhemispheric facilitation or inhibition when cued to respond or stop, respectively. Twenty-three healthy human participants of either sex performed a bimanual anticipatory response inhibition paradigm with cues signaling the likelihood of a stop-signal occurring. Dual-coil transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to determine corticomotor excitability (CME), interhemispheric inhibition (IHI), and interhemispheric facilitation (IHF) in the left hand at rest and during response preparation. Response times slowed and stopping-interference decreased with increased stopping certainty. Proactive response inhibition was marked by a reduced rate of rise and faster cancel time in electromyographical bursts during stopping. There was a nonselective release of IHI but not CME from rest to in-task response preparation, whereas IHF was not observed in either context. An effector-specific reduction in CME but no reinstatement of IHI was observed when the left hand was cued to stop. These findings indicate that stopping speed and selectivity are better with proactive cueing and that interhemispheric M1-M1 channels modulate inhibitory tone during response preparation to support going but not proactive response inhibition.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Response inhibition is essential for terminating inappropriate actions and, in some cases, may be required for only part of a multieffector action. The present study examined interhemispheric influences between the primary motor cortices during selective stopping with proactive cuing. Stopping selectivity was greater with increased stopping certainty and was marked by proactive adjustments to the hand cued to stop and hand cued to respond separately. Inhibitory interhemispheric influences were released during response preparation but were not directly involved in proactive response inhibition. These findings indicate that between-hand stopping can be selective with proactive cuing, but cue-related improvements are unlikely to reflect the advance engagement of interhemispheric influences between primary motor cortices.

Comparing anticipatory and stop-signal response inhibition with a novel, open-source selective stopping toolbox

Response inhibition is essential for terminating inappropriate actions and, in some cases, may be required selectively. Selective stopping can be investigated with multicomponent anticipatory or stop-signal response inhibition paradigms. Here we provide a freely available open-source Selective Stopping Toolbox (SeleST) to investigate selective stopping using either anticipatory or stop-signal task variants. This study aimed to evaluate selective stopping between the anticipatory and stop-signal variants using SeleST and provide guidance to researchers for future use. Forty healthy human participants performed bimanual anticipatory response inhibition and stop-signal tasks in SeleST. Responses were more variable and slowed to a greater extent during the stop-signal than in the anticipatory paradigm. However, the stop-signal paradigm better conformed to the assumption of the independent race model of response inhibition. The expected response delay during selective stop trials was present in both variants. These findings indicate that selective stopping can successfully be investigated with either anticipatory or stop-signal paradigms in SeleST. We propose that the anticipatory paradigm should be used when strict control of response times is desired, while the stop-signal paradigm should be used when it is desired to estimate stop-signal reaction time with the independent race model. Importantly, the dual functionality of SeleST allows researchers flexibility in paradigm selection when investigating selective stopping.

Impaired Non-Selective Response Inhibition in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Two prominent features of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are the inability to inhibit intrusive thoughts and behaviors and pathological doubt or intolerance of uncertainty. Previous study showed that uncertain context modeled by equiprobable presentation of excitatory (Go) and inhibitory (NoGo) stimuli requires non-selective response inhibition in healthy subjects. In other words, it requires transient global inhibition triggered not only by excitatory stimuli but also by inhibitory stimuli. Meanwhile, it is unknown whether OCD patients show abnormal brain activity of the non-selective response inhibition system. In order to test this assumption, we performed an fMRI study with an equiprobable Go/NoGo task involving fourteen patients with OCD and compared them with 34 healthy controls. Patients with OCD showed pathological slowness in the Go/NoGo task. The non-selective response inhibition system in OCD included all brain areas seen in healthy controls and, in addition, involved the right anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and the anterior insula/frontal operculum (AIFO). Moreover, a between-group comparison revealed hypoactivation of brain regions within cingulo-opercular and cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical (CSTC) circuits in OCD. Among hypoactivated areas, the right ACC and the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) were associated with non-selective inhibition. Furthermore, regression analysis showed that OCD slowness was associated with decreased activation in cingulate regions and two brain areas related to non-selective inhibition: the right DLPFC and the right inferior parietal lobule (IPL). These results suggest that non-selective response inhibition is impaired in OCD, which could be a potential explanation for a relationship between inhibitory deficits and the other remarkable characteristic of OCD known as intolerance of uncertainty.

Investigating the role of contextual cues and interhemispheric inhibitory mechanisms in response-selective stopping: a TMS study

Response-selective stopping requires cancellation of only one component of a multicomponent action. While research has investigated how delays to the continuing action components ("stopping interference") can be attenuated by way of contextual cues of the specific stopping demands ("foreknowledge"), little is known of the underlying neural mechanisms. Twenty-seven, healthy, young adults undertook a multicomponent stop-signal task. For two thirds of trials, participants responded to an imperative (go) stimulus (IS) with simultaneous button presses using their left and right index fingers. For the remaining one third of trials, the IS was followed by a stop-signal requiring cancellation of only the left, or right, response. To manipulate foreknowledge of stopping demands, a cue preceded the IS that informed participants which hand might be required to stop (proactive) or provided no such information (reactive). Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) assessed corticospinal excitability (CSE) as well as short- and long-interval interhemispheric inhibition (SIHI, LIHI) between the primary motor cortices. Proactive cues reduced, but did not eliminate, stopping interference relative to the reactive condition. Relative to TMS measures at cue onset, decreases in CSE (both hands and both cue conditions) and LIHI (both hands, proactive condition only) were observed during movement preparation. During movement cancellation, LIHI reduction in the continuing hand was greater than that in the stopping hand and greater than LIHI reductions in both hands during execution of multicomponent responses. Our results indicate that foreknowledge attenuates stopping interference and provide evidence for a novel role of LIHI, mediated via prefrontal regions, in facilitating continuing action components.

Exploring stop signal reaction time over two sessions of the anticipatory response inhibition task

Various behavioural tasks measure response inhibition encompassing the ability to cancel unwanted actions, evaluated via stop signal reaction time (SSRT). It is unclear whether SSRT is an unchangeable inherent measure of inhibitory network integrity or whether it can improve with repetition. The current study explored if and how SSRT changed over two sessions for the Anticipatory Response Inhibition Task (ARIT), and how this compared with the Stop Signal Task (SST). Forty-four participants repeated the ARIT and SST over two sessions. SSRT and its constituent measures (Go trial reaction time, stop signal delay) were calculated. SSRT reflecting non-selective response inhibition was consistent between sessions in the ARIT and SST (both p > 0.293). Reaction time and stop signal delay also remained stable across sessions in the ARIT (all p > 0.063), whereas in the SST, reaction time (p = 0.013) and stop signal delay (p = 0.009) increased. SSRT reflecting behaviourally selective stopping on the ARIT improved (p < 0.001) over two sessions, which was underpinned by changes to reaction time (p < 0.001) and stop signal delay (p < 0.001). Overall, the maximal efficiency of non-selective inhibition remained stable across two sessions in the ARIT. Results of the SST confirmed that non-selective inhibition can, however, be affected by more than inhibitory network integrity. Behaviourally selective stopping on the ARIT changed across sessions, suggesting the sequential neural process captured by the SSRT occurred more quickly in session two. These findings have implications for future studies that necessitate behavioural measures over multiple sessions.

Training inhibitory control in adolescents with elevated attention deficit hyperactivity disorder traits: a randomised controlled trial of the Alfi Virtual Reality programme

INTRODUCTION

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterised by significant deficits in attention and inhibition. These deficits are associated with negative sequelae that emerge in childhood and often continue throughout adolescence. Despite these difficulties adolescents with ADHD often demonstrate poor treatment compliance with traditional interventions (eg, psychostimulant medication). Virtual reality (VR) presents an innovative means of delivering engaging cognitive interventions for adolescents with ADHD and offers the potential to improve compliance with such interventions. The current parallel, randomised controlled trial aims to evaluate the effects of a VR intervention (Alfi) designed to improve inhibition in adolescents with ADHD.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A sample of 100 adolescents (aged 13-17) with elevated ADHD symptoms will be recruited from secondary schools and ADHD organisations located in the state of Victoria, Australia. Participants will be randomly assigned to either an 8-week VR intervention or a usual care control. The VR intervention involves the completion of 14 sessions, each 20 min in duration. Participants will complete computerised assessments of inhibition and risk-taking preintervention and immediately postintervention. Parents/guardians will complete online questionnaires about their child's ADHD symptoms and social functioning at each of these timepoints. The primary outcome is change in inhibition performance in adolescents who received the intervention from preintervention to postintervention compared with adolescents in the control condition. Secondary outcomes include change in risk-taking, ADHD symptoms and social functioning in adolescents who received the intervention from preintervention to postintervention compared with adolescents in the control condition. If the intervention is shown to be effective, it may offer a supplementary approach to traditional interventions for adolescents with ADHD experiencing inhibitory control difficulties.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial has ethics approval from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (21530) and the Victorian Department of Education and Training HREC (2020_004271). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings and community activities. Individual summaries of the results will be provided to participants on request.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620000647932.

Evidence for non-selective response inhibition in uncertain contexts revealed by combined meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis of fMRI data

Response inhibition is typically considered a brain mechanism selectively triggered by particular “inhibitory” stimuli or events. Based on recent research, an alternative non-selective mechanism was proposed by several authors. Presumably, the inhibitory brain activity may be triggered not only by the presentation of “inhibitory” stimuli but also by any imperative stimuli, including Go stimuli, when the context is uncertain. Earlier support for this notion was mainly based on the absence of a significant difference between neural activity evoked by equiprobable Go and NoGo stimuli. Equiprobable Go/NoGo design with a simple response time task limits potential confounds between response inhibition and accompanying cognitive processes while not preventing prepotent automaticity. However, previous neuroimaging studies used classical null hypothesis significance testing, making it impossible to accept the null hypothesis. Therefore, the current research aimed to provide evidence for the practical equivalence of neuronal activity in the Go and NoGo trials using Bayesian analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data. Thirty-four healthy participants performed a cued Go/NoGo task with an equiprobable presentation of Go and NoGo stimuli. To independently localize brain areas associated with response inhibition in similar experimental conditions, we performed a meta-analysis of fMRI studies using equal-probability Go/NoGo tasks. As a result, we observed overlap between response inhibition areas and areas that demonstrate the practical equivalence of neuronal activity located in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, parietal cortex, premotor cortex, and left inferior frontal gyrus. Thus, obtained results favour the existence of non-selective response inhibition, which can act in settings of contextual uncertainty induced by the equal probability of Go and NoGo stimuli.

Early response competition over the motor cortex underlies proactive control of error correction

Response inhibition is a fundamental brain function that must be flexible enough to incorporate proactive goal-directed demands, along with reactive, automatic and well consolidated behaviors. However, whether proactive inhibitory processes can be explained by response competition, rather than by active top-down inhibitory control, remains still unclear. Using a modified version of the Eriksen flanker task, we examined the behavioral and electrophysiological correlates elicited by manipulating the degree of inhibitory control in a task that involved the fast amendment of errors. We observed that restraining or encouraging the correction of errors did not affect the behavioral and neural correlates associated to reactive inhibition. We rather found that an early, sustained and bilateral activation, of both the correct and the incorrect response, was required for an effective proactive inhibitory control. Selective unilateral patterns of response preparation were instead associated with defective response suppression. Our results provide behavioral and electrophysiological evidence of a simultaneous dual pre-activation of two motor commands, likely underlying a global operating mechanism suggesting competition or lateral inhibition to govern the amendment of errors. These findings are consistent with the response inhibitory processes already observed in speed-accuracy tradeoff studies, and hint at a decisive role of early response competition to determine the success of multiple-choice action selection.

Decoupling countermands nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping

Response inhibition is essential for goal-directed behavior within dynamic environments. Selective stopping is a complex form of response inhibition where only part of a multi-effector response must be cancelled. A substantial response delay emerges on unstopped effectors when a cued effector is successfully stopped. This stopping-interference effect is indicative of nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping which may, in-part, be a consequence of functional coupling. The present study examined selective stopping of (de)coupled bimanual responses in healthy human participants of either sex. Participants performed synchronous and asynchronous versions of an anticipatory stop-signal paradigm across two sessions while mu (µ) and beta (β) rhythm were measured with electroencephalography. Results showed that responses were behaviorally decoupled during asynchronous go trials and the extent of response asynchrony was associated with lateralized sensorimotor µ and β desynchronization during response preparation. Selective stopping produced a stopping-interference effect and was marked by a nonselective increase and subsequent rebound in prefrontal and sensorimotor β. In support of the coupling account, stopping-interference was smaller during selective stopping of asynchronous responses, and negatively associated with the magnitude of decoupling. However, the increase in sensorimotor β during selective stopping was equivalent between the stopped and unstopped hand irrespective of response synchrony. Overall, the findings demonstrate that decoupling facilitates selective stopping after a global pause process and emphasizes the importance of considering the influence of both the go and stop context when investigating response inhibition.

Cognitive control of action naming in adults who stutter

PURPOSE

Based on previous evidence that cognitive control of lexical selection in object (noun) naming operates differently in adults who stutter (AWS) versus typically-fluent adults (TFA), the aim was to investigate cognitive control of lexical selection in action (verb) naming in AWS.

METHOD

12 AWS and 12 TFA named line drawings depicting actions using verbs. Half of the pictures had high-agreement action names and the other half low-agreement action names. Naming accuracy and reaction times (RT), and event-related potentials (ERPs) time-locked to picture onset, were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Naming RTs were slower for low- versus high-agreement trials, and the magnitude of this effect was larger in AWS versus TFA. Delta-plot analysis of naming RTs revealed that individual differences in selective inhibition were associated with the agreement effect on naming RTs in AWS but not TFA. Action naming elicited frontal-central N2 activity in both agreement conditions in TFA but not AWS. Additionally, a later, posterior P3b component was affected by agreement in TFA only. In AWS, low-agreement action naming elicited frontal P3a activation.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that cognitive control of action name selection was qualitatively different between groups. In TFA, cognitive control of lexical selection in action naming involved nonselective inhibition, as well as more efficient working memory updating on high- versus low-agreement trials. In AWS, cognitive control of low-agreement action naming involved increased focal attention. Individual differences in selective inhibition may have moderated cognitive control of action naming in AWS.

The role of dorsal premotor cortex in joint action stopping

Human sensorimotor interaction requires mutual behavioral adaptation as well as shared cognitive task representations (Joint Action, JA). Yet, an under-investigated aspect of JA is the neurobehavioral mechanisms employed to stop actions if the context calls for it. Sparse evidence points to the possible contribution of the left dorsal premotor cortex (lPMd) in sculpting movements according to the socio-interactive context. To clarify this issue, we ran two experiments integrating a classical stop signal paradigm with an ecological JA task. The first behavioral study shows longer Stop performance in the JA condition. In the second, we use transcranial magnetic stimulation to inhibit the lPMd or a control site (vertex). Results show that lPMd modulates the JA stopping performance. Action stopping is an important component of JA coordination, and here we provide evidence that lPMd is a key node of a brain network recruited for online mutual co-adaptation in social contexts.

•

Interaction requires mutual adaptation and a shared cognitive task representation

•

Sensorimotor representations must be negotiated between partners to achieve the goal

•

Motor suppression mechanisms might be essential in Joint Action coordination

•

Dorsal premotor cortex (PMd) plays a key role in guiding Joint Action coordination

Towards real-world generalizability of a circuit for action-stopping

Two decades of cross-species neuroscience research on rapid action-stopping in the laboratory has provided motivation for an underlying prefrontal-basal ganglia circuit. Here we provide an update of key studies from the past few years. We conclude that this basic neural circuit is on increasingly firm ground, and we move on to consider whether the action-stopping function implemented by this circuit applies beyond the simple laboratory stop signal task. We advance through a series of studies of increasing 'real-worldness', starting with laboratory tests of stopping of speech, gait and bodily functions, and then going beyond the laboratory to consider neural recordings and stimulation during moments of control presumably required in everyday activities such as walking and driving. We end by asking whether stopping research has clinical relevance, focusing on movement disorders such as stuttering, tics and freezing of gait. Overall, we conclude there are hints that the prefrontal-basal ganglia action-stopping circuit that is engaged by the basic stop signal task is recruited in myriad scenarios; however, truly proving this for real-world scenarios requires a new generation of studies that will need to overcome substantial technical and inferential challenges.

The effects of discrimination on the adoption of different strategies in selective stopping

Selective stopping is demanded in situations where responses must be suppressed to certain signals, but not others. To explore this type of inhibition, the standard stop-signal task has been modified to include a selective implementation of response inhibition by introducing a new stimulus that participants should ignore. However, a stimulus-selective stop-signal task can be performed following different strategies. Some participants fulfill the selective implementation of the stopping process after discriminating the stop and ignore signals, but some others stop the ongoing response whenever any new stimulus appears. The factors that influence this strategy choice are being explored, where both task and participant variables are under consideration. This study aimed to investigate whether the difficulty in discriminating between stop and ignore signals influences strategy adoption. Additionally, we examined whether participants modify their strategy in a flexible manner throughout the task in alternating easy and hard discrimination condition blocks. In the easy discrimination condition, the stop and the ignore signals differed both in color and shape, whereas in the hard discrimination condition, they only differed in shape. Our results from 64 participants revealed that manipulating the difficulty of signal discrimination strongly influenced strategy choice. Also, we found that participants can adapt their strategy according to task demands. They preferentially adopted a selective stopping strategy when discrimination was easy, whereas they changed to a nonselective stopping strategy under the hard discrimination condition. Overall, results from the current study suggest that signal discrimination difficulty influences the adoption of strategies in selective stopping.

When the response does not match the threat: The relationship between threat assessment and behavioural response in ambiguous lethal force decision-making

Deciding when to use lethal force inherently depends on assessing threat, a process that itself incorporates numerous perceptual factors. This study assessed this relationship between perception-based threat assessment and behaviour-based threat response. Specifically, participants completed multiple tasks designed to elicit either a threat rating (e.g., perception-informed threat assessment) or a binary behavioural response (e.g., shoot/don't-shoot). Actor posture and weapon presence significantly affected the threat assessment, which was an extremely powerful omnibus predictor of threat response. However, for ambiguous threat stimuli, perceived threat became a poor predictor for threat response relative to the omnibus test. Participants appeared to adopt additional rules to inform behaviour independent of the threat assessment when faced with an ambiguous situation. These results demonstrate an intriguing disparity between subjective threat assessment and the behavioural response to use force that does not apply well to ambiguous cases or adequately explain errors in lethal force decisions.

Control of response interference: caudate nucleus contributes to selective inhibition

While the role of cortical regions in cognitive control processes is well accepted, the contribution of subcortical structures (e.g., the striatum), especially to the control of response interference, remains controversial. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the cortical and particularly subcortical neural mechanisms of response interference control (including selective inhibition). Thirteen healthy young participants underwent event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging while performing a unimanual version of the Simon task. In this task, successful performance required the resolution of stimulus–response conflicts in incongruent trials by selectively inhibiting interfering response tendencies. The behavioral results show an asymmetrical Simon effect that was more pronounced in the contralateral hemifield. Contrasting incongruent trials with congruent trials (i.e., the overall Simon effect) significantly activated clusters in the right anterior cingulate cortex, the right posterior insula, and the caudate nucleus bilaterally. Furthermore, a region of interest analysis based on previous patient studies revealed that activation in the bilateral caudate nucleus significantly co-varied with a parameter of selective inhibition derived from distributional analyses of response times. Our results corroborate the notion that the cognitive control of response interference is supported by a fronto-striatal circuitry, with a functional contribution of the caudate nucleus to the selective inhibition of interfering response tendencies.

The attentional boost effect with semantic information detection tasks

The attentional boost effect (ABE) is a phenomenon in which in some dual tasks, increased attention to target detection causes an increase in memory performance related to items paired with the target. However, in previous studies concerning the ABE, the detection task objects usually reflected perceptual information. Whether the ABE could be observed if the task involves detecting semantic information is unclear. To answer this question, the present study adopted the classic dual-task paradigm of the ABE. Arabic numerals were used as semantic information stimuli in the detection tasks, and the degree of semantic processing in the detection task gradually increased over three experiments. The results showed that target detection with semantic information (i.e., digits) triggered the ABE (Experiment 1) and that the ABE was also generated under the semantic judgement-based detection task (i.e., odd-even detection task) regardless of whether the detection task used a single-target stimulus (Experiment 2) or a multi-target stimulus (Experiment 3). These findings indicate that an increased semantic load before the target decision in the detection task does not affect the ABE, and both perceptual detection and semantic detection can trigger the ABE.

Efficacy of inhibitory control depends on procrastination and deceleration in saccade planning

A goal-directed flexible behavior warrants our ability to timely inhibit impending movements deemed inappropriate due to an abrupt change in the context. Race model of countermanding rapid saccadic eye movement posits a competition between a preparatory GO process and an inhibitory STOP process rising to reach a fixed threshold. Stop-signal response time (SSRT), which is the average time STOP takes to rise to the threshold, is widely used as a metric to assess the ability to revoke a movement. A reliable estimation of SSRT critically depends on the assumption of independence between GO and STOP process, which has been violated in many studies. In addition, the physiological correlate of stochastic rise of STOP process to a threshold remains unsubstantiated thus far. Here, we introduce a method to estimate the efficacy of inhibitory control on the premise of an alternative model that assumes deceleration of GO process following the stop-signal onset. The average reaction time increased exponentially with the increase in the maximum duration available to attenuate GO process by the stop-signal. Our method estimates saccade procrastination in anticipation of the stop-signal, and the rate of increase in attenuation on GO process. Unlike SSRT, these new metrics are independent of how the stopping performance varies with the delay between go- and stop-signal onsets. We reckon that these metrics together qualify to be considered as an efficient alternative to SSRT for the estimation of individuals' ability to countermand saccades, especially in cases when the assumptions of race model are no longer valid.

Please, don't do it! Fifteen years of progress of non-invasive brain stimulation in action inhibition

The ability to inhibit prepotent responses is critical for survival. Action inhibition can be investigated using a stop-signal task (SST), designed to provide a reliable measure of the time taken by the brain to suppress motor responses. Here we review the major research advances using the combination of this paradigm with the use of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques in the last fifteen years. We highlight new methodological approaches to understanding and exploiting several processes underlying action control, which is critically impaired in several psychiatric disorders. In this review we present and discuss existing literature demonstrating i) the importance of the use of non-invasive brain stimulation in studying human action inhibition, unveiling the neural network involved ii) the critical role of prefrontal areas, including the pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA) and the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), in inhibitory control iii) the neural and behavioral evidence of proactive and reactive action inhibition. As the main result of this review, the specific literature demonstrated the crucial role of pre-SMA and IFG as evidenced from the field of noninvasive brain stimulation studies. Finally, we discuss the critical questions that remain unanswered about how such non-invasive brain stimulation protocols can be translated to therapeutic treatments.

Active Forgetting: Adaptation of Memory by Prefrontal Control

Over the past century, psychologists have discussed whether forgetting might arise from active mechanisms that promote memory loss to achieve various functions, such as minimizing errors, facilitating learning, or regulating one's emotional state. The past decade has witnessed a great expansion in knowledge about the brain mechanisms underlying active forgetting in its varying forms. A core discovery concerns the role of the prefrontal cortex in exerting top-down control over mnemonic activity in the hippocampus and other brain structures, often via inhibitory control. New findings reveal that such processes not only induce forgetting of specific memories but also can suppress the operation of mnemonic processes more broadly, triggering windows of anterograde and retrograde amnesia in healthy people. Recent work extends active forgetting to nonhuman animals, presaging the development of a multilevel mechanistic account that spans the cognitive, systems, network, and even cellular levels. This work reveals how organisms adapt their memories to their cognitive and emotional goals and has implications for understanding vulnerability to psychiatric disorders.

A Single Mechanism for Global and Selective Response Inhibition under the Influence of Motor Preparation

In our everyday behavior, we frequently cancel one movement while continuing others. Two competing models have been suggested for the cancellation of such specific actions: (1) the abrupt engagement of a unitary global inhibitory mechanism followed by reinitiation of the continuing actions; or (2) a balance between distinct global and selective inhibitory mechanisms. To evaluate these models, we examined behavioral and physiological markers of proactive control, motor preparation, and response inhibition using a combination of behavioral task performance measures, electromyography, electroencephalography, and motor evoked potentials elicited with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Healthy human participants of either sex performed two versions of a stop signal task with cues incorporating proactive control: a unimanual task involving the initiation and inhibition of a single response, and a bimanual task involving the selective stopping of one of two prepared responses. Stopping latencies, motor evoked potentials, and frontal β power (13-20 Hz) did not differ between the unimanual and bimanual tasks. However, evidence for selective proactive control before stopping was manifest in the bimanual condition as changes in corticomotor excitability, μ (9-14 Hz), and β (15-25 Hz) oscillations over sensorimotor cortex. Together, our results favor the recruitment of a single inhibitory stopping mechanism with the net behavioral output depending on the levels of action-specific motor preparation.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Response inhibition is a core function of cognitive flexibility and movement control. Previous research has suggested separate mechanisms for selective and global inhibition, yet the evidence is inconclusive. Another line of research has examined the influence of preparation for action stopping, or what is called proactive control, on stopping performance, yet the neural mechanisms underlying this interaction are unknown. We combined transcranial magnetic stimulation, electroencephalography, electromyography, and behavioral measures to compare selective and global inhibition models and to investigate markers of proactive control. The results favor a single inhibitory mechanism over separate selective and global mechanisms but indicate a vital role for preceding motor activity in determining whether and which actions will be stopped.

Globus pallidus dynamics reveal covert strategies for behavioral inhibition

Flexible behavior requires restraint of actions that are no longer appropriate. This behavioral inhibition critically relies on frontal cortex - basal ganglia circuits. Within the basal ganglia, the globus pallidus pars externa (GPe) has been hypothesized to mediate selective proactive inhibition: being prepared to stop a specific action, if needed. Here we investigate population dynamics of rat GPe neurons during preparation-to-stop, stopping, and going. Rats selectively engaged proactive inhibition towards specific actions, as shown by slowed reaction times (RTs). Under proactive inhibition, GPe population activity occupied state-space locations farther from the trajectory followed during normal movement initiation. Furthermore, the state-space locations were predictive of distinct types of errors: failures-to-stop, failures-to-go, and incorrect choices. Slowed RTs on correct proactive trials reflected starting bias towards the alternative action, which was overcome before progressing towards action initiation. Our results demonstrate that rats can exert cognitive control via strategic adjustments to their GPe network state.

Inhibitory mechanisms in motor imagery: disentangling different forms of inhibition using action mode switching

In motor imagery, probably several inhibitory mechanisms prevent actual movements: global inhibition, effector-specific inhibition, and inhibition retrieved during target processing. We investigated factors that may influence those mechanisms. In an action mode switching paradigm, participants imagined and executed movements from home buttons to target buttons. We analysed sequential effects. Activation (due to execution) or inhibition (due to imagination) in the previous trial should affect performance in the subsequent trial, enabling conclusions about inhibitory mechanisms in motor imagery. In Experiment 1, evidence for global and effector-specific inhibition was observed. Evidence for inhibition retrieved during target processing was inconclusive. Data patterns were similar when start and end of the imagined movements were indicated with an effector that was part of the imagined movement (hand) and with a different effector (feet). In Experiment 2, we ruled out that the use of biological stimuli (left/right hands in Experiment 1) to indicate the effector causes sequential effects attributed to effector-specific inhibition, by using uppercase letters (R, L). As in Experiment 1, evidence for effector-specific inhibition was observed. In conclusion, we could reliably disentangle several inhibitory mechanisms in motor imagery.

Between-hand coupling during response inhibition

Response inhibition reflects the process of terminating inappropriate preplanned or ongoing movements. When one hand is cued to stop after preparing a bimanual response (Partial trial), there is a substantial delay on the responding side. This delay is termed the interference effect and identifies a constraint that limits selective response inhibition. γ-Aminobutyric acid (GABA)-mediated networks within primary motor cortex (M1) may have distinct roles during response inhibition. In this study we examined whether the interference effect is the consequence of between-hand "coupling" into a unitary response and whether this is reflected in GABAergic intracortical inhibition within M1. Eighteen healthy right-handed participants performed a bimanual synchronous and asynchronous anticipatory response inhibition task. Electromyographic recordings were obtained from the first dorsal interosseous muscle bilaterally. Motor evoked potentials were elicited by single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation over right M1. As expected, Go trial performance was better with the synchronous compared with the asynchronous version of the task. Paradoxically, response delays during Partial trials were longer with the synchronous compared with the asynchronous task. Although task difficulty did not modulate GABAergic intracortical inhibition, there was a trend for between-hand coupling on asynchronous trials to be associated with greater GABA_B receptor-mediated inhibition and lesser recruitment of GABA_A receptor-mediated inhibition. The novel findings indicate that the interference effect is in part a consequence of between-hand coupling into a unitary response during movement preparation. The ability to respond independently with the two hands may rely on modulation of distinct inhibitory processes.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The temporal dynamics of an anticipated response task were manipulated to effect the difficulty of behavioral stopping and the underlying effects on motor neurophysiology. There were large response delays during trials where a subcomponent of an upcoming bimanual response was cued to stop in conditions where the anticipated action of the hands were synchronous, but not when asynchronous. Response delays reflected the integration of actions of both hands into a unitary response.

Preparing to Stop Action Increases Beta Band Power in Contralateral Sensorimotor Cortex

How do we prepare to stop ourselves in the future? Here, we used scalp EEG to test the hypothesis that people prepare to stop by putting parts of their motor system (specifically, here, sensorimotor cortex) into a suppressed state ahead of time. On each trial, participants were cued to prepare to stop one hand and then initiated a bimanual movement. On a minority of trials, participants were instructed to stop the cued hand while continuing quickly with the other. We used a guided multivariate source separation method to examine oscillatory power changes in presumed sensorimotor cortical areas. We observed that, when people prepare to stop a hand, there were above-baseline beta band power increases (12–24 Hz) in contralateral cortex up to a second earlier. This increase in beta band power in the proactive period was functionally relevant because it predicted, trial by trial, the degree of selectivity with which participants subsequently stopped a response but did not relate to movement per se. Thus, preparing to stop particular response channels corresponds to increased beta power from contralateral (sensorimotor) cortex, and this relates specifically to subsequent stopping. These results provide a high temporal resolution and frequency-specific electrophysiological signature of the preparing-to-stop state that is pertinent to future studies of mitigating provocation, including in clinical disorders. The results also highlight the utility of guided multivariate source separation for revealing the cortical dynamics underlying both movement and response suppression.

Strategies of selective changing: Preparatory neural processes seem to be responsible for differences in complex inhibition

Selective inhibition describes the stopping of an action while other actions are further executed. It can be differentiated between two strategies to stop selectively: the fast but global stop all, then discriminate strategy and the slower but more selective first discriminate, then stop strategy. It is assumed that the first discriminate, then stop strategy is especially used when information regarding which action might have to be stopped is already available beforehand. Moreover, it is supposed that both strategies differ in matters of basal ganglia pathways used for their execution. Aim of the present study was to investigate the use of the two strategies in situations requiring selective changing of an action. Eighteen healthy male participants performed a selective stop-change task with informative and uninformative cues during fMRI. Behavioral results show that informative cues led to a benefit in both inhibition times and selectivity. FMRI data revealed that the same cortico-subcortical pathway was used with informative and uninformative cues. Behavioral and neuronal results indicate that participants used the first discriminate, then stop strategy for selective inhibition irrespective of the amount of previously available information. Moreover, the neural activity data indicate that the benefit in the informed condition was produced by an efficient preparation for the concrete change process. Possible factors that might affect which strategy is used for selective stopping are the level of previously available information (foreknowledge) and the experimental set-up, as e.g. task complexity.

Saccade selection and inhibition: motor and attentional components

Motor responses are fundamentally spatial in their function and neural organization. However, studies of inhibitory motor control, focused on global stopping of all actions, have ignored whether inhibitory control can be exercised selectively for specific actions. We used a new approach to elicit and measure motor inhibition by asking human participants to either look at (select) or avoid looking at (inhibit) a location in space. We found that instructing a location to be avoided resulted in an inhibitory bias specific to that location. When compared with the facilitatory bias observed in the Look task, it differed significantly in both its spatiotemporal dynamics and its modulation of attentional processing. While action selection was evident in oculomotor system and interacted with attentional processing, action inhibition was evident mainly in the oculomotor system. Our findings suggest that action inhibition is implemented by spatially specific mechanisms that are separate from action selection. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We show that cognitive control of saccadic responses evokes separable action selection and inhibition processes. Both action selection and inhibition are represented in the saccadic system, but only action selection interacts with the attentional system.

Stopping Speed in the Stop-Change Task: Experimental Design Matters!

Previous research comparing the speed of inhibiting a motor response in no-foreknowledge vs. foreknowledge conditions revealed inconsistent findings. While some studies found stopping to be faster in the no-foreknowledge condition, others reported that it was faster in the foreknowledge condition. One possible explanation for the heterogeneous results might be differences in experimental design between those studies. Given this, we wanted to scrutinize whether it makes any difference if foreknowledge and no-foreknowledge are investigated in a context in which both conditions are presented separated from each other (block design) vs. in a context in which both conditions occur intermingled (event-related design). To address this question a modified stop-change task was used. In Experiment 1 no-foreknowledge and foreknowledge trials were imbedded in a block design, while Experiment 2 made use of an event-related design. We found that inhibition speed as measured with the stop signal reaction time (SSRT) was faster in the foreknowledge as compared to the no-foreknowledge condition of the event-related study, whereas no differences in SSRT between both conditions were revealed in the block design study. Analyses of reaction times to the go stimulus reflect that participants tended to slow down their go responses in both experimental contexts. However, in the foreknowledge condition of the event-related study, this strategic slowing was especially pronounced, a finding we refer to as strategic delay effect (SDE), and significantly correlated with SSRT. In sum our results suggest that inhibition speed is susceptible to strategic bias resulting from differences in experimental setup.

Motor Preparation for Action Inhibition: A Review of Single Pulse TMS Studies Using the Go/NoGo Paradigm

Human behavior must be flexible to respond to environmental and social demands, and to achieve these goals, it requires control. For instance, inhibitory control is used to refrain from executing unwanted or anticipated responses to environmental stimuli. When inhibitory mechanisms are inefficient due to some pathological conditions, such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or pathological gambling, patients show a reduced capability of refraining from executing actions. When planning to execute an action, various inhibitory control mechanisms are activated to prevent the unwanted release of impulses and to ensure that the correct response is produced. A great body of research has used various cognitive tasks to isolate one or more components of inhibitory control (e.g., response selectivity) and to investigate their neuronal underpinnings. However, inter-individual differences in behavior are rarely properly considered, although they often represent a considerable source of noise in the data. In the present review, we will address this issue using the specific case of action inhibition, presenting the results of studies that coupled the so-called Go/NoGo paradigm with non-invasive brain stimulation to directly test the effects of motor inhibition on the excitability of the corticospinal system (CSE). Motor preparation is rarely measured in action inhibition studies, and participants’ compliancy to the task’s requests is often assumed rather than tested. Single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a powerful tool to directly measure CSE, whose responsivity depends on both excitatory and inhibitory processes. However, when motor preparation is not measured and the task design does not require participants to prepare responses in advance, fluctuations in CSE levels can be mistaken for active inhibition. One way to isolate motor preparation is to use a carefully designed task that allows to control for excessive variability in the timing of activation of inhibitory control mechanisms. Here, we review single pulse TMS studies that have used variants of the Go/NoGo task to investigate inhibitory control functions in healthy participants. We will identify the specific strategies that likely induced motor preparation in participants, and their results will be compared to current theories of action inhibition.

Dopamine effects on frontal cortical blood flow and motor inhibition in Parkinson's disease

Parkinson's disease (PD) is characterized by dysfunction in frontal cortical and striatal networks that regulate action control. We investigated the pharmacological effect of dopamine agonist replacement therapy on frontal cortical activity and motor inhibition. Using Arterial Spin Labeling MRI, we examined 26 PD patients in the off- and on-dopamine agonist medication states to assess the effect of dopamine agonists on frontal cortical regional cerebral blood flow. Motor inhibition was measured by the Simon task in both medication states. We applied the dual process activation suppression model to dissociate fast response impulses from motor inhibition of incorrect responses. General linear regression model analyses determined the medication effect on regional cerebral blood flow and motor inhibition, and the relationship between regional cerebral blood flow and motor inhibitory proficiency. We show that dopamine agonist administration increases frontal cerebral blood flow, particularly in the pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Higher regional blood flow in the pre-SMA, DLPFC and motor cortex was associated with better inhibitory control, suggesting that treatments which improve frontal cortical activity could ameliorate motor inhibition deficiency in PD patients.

The role of distractor inhibition in the attentional boost effect: evidence from the R/K paradigm

Stimuli presented with targets in a detection task are later recognised more accurately than those presented with distractors, an unusual effect labelled the attentional boost effect (ABE). This effect may reflect an enhancement triggered by target detection, the inhibition of distractor rejection, or some combination of both. To test these possibilities, the present study adopted a baseline similar to that of Swallow and Jiang ([2014b]. The attentional boost effect really is a boost: evidence from a new baseline. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(5), 1298-1307); the goal was to separate target-induced enhancements from distractor-induced inhibition. An R/K procedure was applied to further explore the kind of memory that might be affected by target detection or distractor rejection. The results show that the memory advantage for target-paired words was robust relative to that of baseline words; this advantage was mainly observed in R responses. More importantly, a memory reduction was also observed for distractor-paired words relative to baseline words, though this reduction was only observed in R responses. These data led us to conclude that the ABE was triggered by both processes: target-induced enhancement and distractor-induced inhibition. Moreover, both processes were more likely to affect recollection-based recognition.

Characterization of inhibitory failure in Multiple Sclerosis: Evidence of impaired conflict resolution

INTRODUCTION

Inhibitory control deficits are frequently reported in Multiple Sclerosis (MS), although it is unclear whether these deficits represent a global or process-specific failure. Notably, most models of inhibitory control recognize at least two dissociable processes, the most consistent being: (a) the inhibition of a dominant response: response suppression, and (b) the inhibition of a dominant response and initiation of a nondominant response: executive control. This study aimed to ascertain the processes underlying inhibitory failure in MS.

METHOD

Twenty-three MS patients and 25 healthy controls completed a battery of commonly used inhibitory tasks, with measures from each task entered into a principal components analysis with orthogonal (varimax) rotation.

RESULTS

As anticipated, two components emerged, with tasks evaluating response suppression (stop signal, go/no go) loading on a common component, and tasks evaluating executive control (Stroop, antisaccade, endogenously-cued saccade) loading on a separate common component. Composite scores were generated for each component and compared between groups. Unlike response suppression scores, executive control scores were significantly poorer for MS patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Inhibitory control deficits in MS may reflect poor resolution in the context of competing processes, rather than difficulty in preventing the execution of an inappropriate response.

A Hierarchical Model of Inhibitory Control

Inhibitory control describes the suppression of goal-irrelevant stimuli and behavioral responses. Current developmental taxonomies distinguish between Response Inhibition – the ability to suppress a prepotent motor response, and Attentional Inhibition – the ability to resist interference from distracting stimuli. Response Inhibition and Attentional Inhibition have exhibited moderately strong positive correlations in previous studies, suggesting they are closely related cognitive abilities. These results may reflect the use of cognitive tasks combining Stimulus–Stimulus- and Stimulus–Response-conflict as indicators of both constructs, which may have conflated their empirical association. Additionally, previous statistical modeling studies have not controlled for individual differences in Working Memory Capacity, which may account for some of the empirical overlap between Response Inhibition and Attentional Inhibition. The aim of the current study was to test a hierarchical model of inhibitory control that specifies Working Memory Capacity as a higher-order cognitive construct. Response Inhibition and Attentional Inhibition were conceptualized as lower-order cognitive mechanisms that should be empirically independent constructs apart from their shared reliance on Working Memory Capacity for active maintenance of goal-relevant representations. Measures of performance on modified stimulus–response compatibility tasks, complex memory span, and non-selective stopping tasks were obtained from 136 preadolescent children (M = 11 years, 10 months, SD = 8 months). Consistent with hypotheses, results from Structural Equation Modeling demonstrated that the Response Inhibition and Attentional Inhibition factors were empirically independent constructs that exhibited partial statistical dependence on the Working Memory Capacity factor. These findings have important implications for current theories and models of inhibitory control during development.

Pipunculidae (Diptera) del Parque Nacional de la Caldera de Taburiente, La Palma (Islas Canarias, España) — Investigando la variabilidad morfológica y molecular de una nueva especie de moscas cabezonas

Este trabajo es el resultado del proyecto “Inventario y estudio de la fauna invertebrada del Parque Nacional de la Caldera de Taburiente” en la isla de La Palma, Islas Canarias. De las cuatro especies recogidas, se describe Chalarus guanche sp. nov. que se registra asimismo de Madeira, y Tomosvaryella freidbergi De Meyer, 1995 y T. parakuthyi De Meyer, 1995 son nuevos registros para La Palma. Se estudia la variabilidad morfológica y molecular de C. guanche sp. nov. y se discute la presencia de variación intragenómica en el ADNr ITS2.

Response inhibition activates distinct motor cortical inhibitory processes

We routinely cancel preplanned movements that are no longer required. If stopping is forewarned, proactive processes are engaged to selectively decrease motor cortex excitability. However, without advance information there is a nonselective reduction in motor cortical excitability. In this study we examined modulation of human primary motor cortex inhibitory networks during response inhibition tasks with informative and uninformative cues using paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation. Long- (LICI) and short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), indicative of GABAB- and GABAA-receptor mediated inhibition, respectively, were examined from motor evoked potentials obtained in task-relevant and task-irrelevant hand muscles when response inhibition was preceded by informative and uninformative cues. When the participants (10 men and 8 women) were cued to stop only a subcomponent of the bimanual response, the remaining response was delayed, and the extent of delay was greatest in the more reactive context, when cues were uninformative. For LICI, inhibition was reduced in both muscles during all types of response inhibition trials compared with the pre-task resting baseline. When cues were uninformative and left-hand responses were suddenly canceled, task-relevant LICI positively correlated with response times of the responding right hand. In trials where left-hand responding was highly probable or known (informative cues), task-relevant SICI was reduced compared with that when cued to rest, revealing a motor set indicative of responding. These novel findings indicate that the GABAB-receptor-mediated pathway may set a default inhibitory tone according to task context, whereas the GABAA-receptor-mediated pathways are recruited proactively with response certainty.

NEW & NOTEWORTHY We examined how informative and uninformative cues that trigger both proactive and reactive processes modulate GABAergic inhibitory networks within human primary motor cortex. We show that GABAB inhibition was released during the task regardless of cue type, whereas GABAA inhibition was reduced when responding was highly probable or known compared with rest. GABAB-receptor-mediated inhibition may set a default inhibitory tone, whereas GABAA circuits may be modulated proactively according to response certainty.

Effects of global and local task repetition proportion on n - 2 repetition costs

In task switching research, one of the most straightforward indications for the involvement of inhibitory processes are n - 2 repetition costs. The present study aimed at investigating effects of different types of repetition proportion on n - 2 repetition costs. In Experiments 1 and 2, repetition proportion was varied globally (i.e., equally for all tasks). The occurrence of 33% task repetitions reduced n - 2 repetition costs when varied within as well as between subjects, but no further decline was visible from 33% to 50% task repetitions. This result is interpreted in terms of a shift of balance between task inhibition and task activation due to the occurrence of task repetitions that is independent of the specific repetition proportion. In contrast, when repetition proportion was varied locally (i.e., by differentially manipulating the occurrence of task repetitions for the three tasks involved), n - 2 repetition costs were reduced monotonically from 0% to 50% task repetitions. This result indicates that when the utility inhibition is tied to individual tasks, the cognitive system is able to adjust the deployment of inhibition accordingly, possibly by modulating processes of overcoming inhibition, not releasing it.

Models of inhibitory control

We survey models of response inhibition having different degrees of mathematical, computational and neurobiological specificity and generality. The independent race model accounts for performance of the stop-signal or countermanding task in terms of a race between GO and STOP processes with stochastic finishing times. This model affords insights into neurophysiological mechanisms that are reviewed by other authors in this volume. The formal link between the abstract GO and STOP processes and instantiating neural processes is articulated through interactive race models consisting of stochastic accumulator GO and STOP units. This class of model provides quantitative accounts of countermanding performance and replicates the dynamics of neural activity producing that performance. The interactive race can be instantiated in a network of biophysically plausible spiking excitatory and inhibitory units. Other models seek to account for interactions between units in frontal cortex, basal ganglia and superior colliculus. The strengths, weaknesses and relationships of the different models will be considered. We will conclude with a brief survey of alternative modelling approaches and a summary of problems to be addressed including accounting for differences across effectors, species, individuals, task conditions and clinical deficits.This article is part of the themed issue 'Movement suppression: brain mechanisms for stopping and stillness'.