Selective inhibition of a multicomponent response can be achieved without cost

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cortical control and performance monitoring of interrupting and redirecting movements

Voluntary behaviour requires control mechanisms that ensure our ability to act independently of habitual and innate response tendencies. Electrophysiological experiments, using the stop-signal task in humans, monkeys and rats, have uncovered a core network of brain structures that is essential for response inhibition. This network is shared across mammals and seems to be conserved throughout their evolution. Recently, new research building on these earlier findings has started to investigate the interaction between response inhibition and other control mechanisms in the brain. Here we describe recent progress in three different areas: selectivity of movement inhibition across different motor systems, re-orientation of motor actions and action evaluation.This article is part of the themed issue 'Movement suppression: brain mechanisms for stopping and stillness'.

Physiological Markers of Motor Inhibition during Human Behavior

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) studies in humans have shown that many behaviors engage processes that suppress excitability within the corticospinal tract. Inhibition of the motor output pathway has been extensively studied in the context of action stopping, where a planned movement needs to be abruptly aborted. Recent TMS work has also revealed markers of motor inhibition during the preparation of movement. Here, we review the evidence for motor inhibition during action stopping and action preparation, focusing on studies that have used TMS to monitor changes in the excitability of the corticospinal pathway. We discuss how these physiological results have motivated theoretical models of how the brain selects actions, regulates movement initiation and execution, and switches from one state to another.

Voluntary motor commands reveal awareness and control of involuntary movement

The capacity to inhibit actions is central to voluntary motor control. However, the control mechanisms and subjective experience involved in voluntarily stopping an involuntary movement remain poorly understood. Here we examined, in humans, the voluntary inhibition of the Kohnstamm phenomenon, in which sustained voluntary contraction of shoulder abductors is followed by involuntary arm raising. Participants were instructed to stop the involuntary movement, hold the arm in a constant position, and 'release' the inhibition after ∼2s. Participants achieved this by modulating agonist muscle activity, rather than by antagonist contraction. Specifically, agonist muscle activity plateaued during this voluntary inhibition, and resumed its previous increase thereafter. There was no discernible antagonist activation. Thus, some central signal appeared to temporarily counter the involuntary motor drive, without directly affecting the Kohnstamm generator itself. We hypothesise a form of "negative motor command" to account for this novel finding. We next tested the specificity of the negative motor command, by inducing bilateral Kohnstamm movements, and instructing voluntary inhibition for one arm only. The results suggested negative motor commands responsible for inhibition are initially broad, affecting both arms, and then become focused. Finally, a psychophysical investigation found that the perceived force of the aftercontraction was significantly overestimated, relative to voluntary contractions with similar EMG levels. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that the Kohnstamm generator does not provide an efference copy signal. Our results shed new light on this interesting class of involuntary movement, and provide new information about voluntary inhibition of action.

Proactive modulation of long-interval intracortical inhibition during response inhibition

Daily activities often require sudden cancellation of preplanned movement, termed response inhibition. When only a subcomponent of a whole response must be suppressed (required here on Partial trials), the ensuing component is markedly delayed. The neural mechanisms underlying partial response inhibition remain unclear. We hypothesized that Partial trials would be associated with nonselective corticomotor suppression and that GABAB receptor-mediated inhibition within primary motor cortex might be responsible for the nonselective corticomotor suppression contributing to Partial trial response delays. Sixteen right-handed participants performed a bimanual anticipatory response inhibition task while single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation was delivered to elicit motor evoked potentials in the left first dorsal interosseous muscle. Lift times, amplitude of motor evoked potentials, and long-interval intracortical inhibition were examined across the different trial types (Go, Stop-Left, Stop-Right, Stop-Both). Go trials produced a tight distribution of lift times around the target, whereas those during Partial trials (Stop-Left and Stop-Right) were substantially delayed. The modulation of motor evoked potential amplitude during Stop-Right trials reflected anticipation, suppression, and subsequent reinitiation of movement. Importantly, suppression was present across all Stop trial types, indicative of a "default" nonselective inhibitory process. Compared with blocks containing only Go trials, inhibition increased when Stop trials were introduced but did not differ between trial types. The amount of inhibition was positively correlated with lift times during Stop-Right trials. Tonic levels of inhibition appear to be proactively modulated by task context and influence the speed at which unimanual responses occur after a nonselective "brake" is applied.