Dissociating attentional capture from action cancellation during the inhibition of bimanual movement

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.

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.

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.

Impaired motor inhibition during perceptual inhibition in older, but not younger adults: a psychophysiological study

The prefrontal cortex (PFC) governs the ability to rapidly cancel planned movements when no longer appropriate (motor inhibition) and ignore distracting stimuli (perceptual inhibition). It is unclear to what extent these processes interact, and how they are impacted by age. The interplay between perceptual and motor inhibition was investigated using a Flanker Task, a Stop Signal Task and a combined Stop Signal Flanker Task in healthy young (n = 33, Mean = 24 years) and older adults (n = 32, Mean = 71 years). PFC activity was measured with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), while electromyography (EMG) measured muscle activity in the fingers used to respond to the visual cues. Perceptual inhibition (the degree to which incongruent flankers slowed response time to a central cue) and motor inhibition (the speed of cancellation of EMG activation following stop cues) independently declined with age. When both processes were engaged together, PFC activity increased for both age groups, however only older adults exhibited slower motor inhibition. The results indicate that cortical upregulation was sufficient to compensate for the increased task demands in younger but not older adults, suggesting potential resource sharing and neural limitations particularly in older adults.