Between-hand coupling during response inhibition

Early Rise and Persistent Inhibition of Electromyography during Failed Stopping

Reactively canceling movements is a vital feature of the motor system to ensure safety. This behavior can be studied in the laboratory using the stop-signal task. There remains ambiguity about whether a "point-of-no-return" exists, after which a response cannot be aborted. A separate question concerns whether motor system inhibition associated with attempted stopping persists when stopping is unsuccessful. We address these two questions using electromyography (EMG) in two stop-signal task experiments. Experiment 1 (n = 24) involved simple right and left index finger responses in separate task blocks. Experiment 2 (n = 28) involved a response choice between the right index and pinky fingers. To evaluate the approximate point of no return, we measured EMG in responding fingers during the 100 msec preceding the stop signal and observed significantly greater EMG amplitudes during failed than successful stopping in both experiments. Thus, EMG before the stop signal differentiated success, regardless of whether there was a response choice. To address whether motor inhibition persists after failed stopping, we assessed EMG peak-to-offset durations and slopes (i.e., rate of EMG decline) for go, failed stop, and successful stop (partial response) trials. EMG peak-to-offset was shorter and steeper for failed stopping compared to go and successful stop partial response trials, suggesting motor inhibition persists even when failing to stop. These findings indicate EMG is sensitive to a "transition zone" at which the relative likelihood of stop failure versus success inverts and also suggest peak-to-offset time of response-related EMG activity during failed stopping reflects stopping-related inhibition.

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

Inhibiting ongoing responses when environmental demands change is a critical component of motor control. Experimentally, the stop signal task (SST) represents the gold standard response inhibition paradigm. However, an emerging body of evidence suggests that the SST conflates two dissociable sources of inhibition, namely an involuntarily pause associated with attentional capture and the (subsequent) voluntary cancellation of action. The extent to which these processes also occur in other response tasks is unknown. Younger n = 24 (20-35 years) and older n = 23 (60-85 years) adults completed tasks involving rapid unimanual or bimanual responses to visual stimuli. A subset of trials required cancellation of one component of an initial bimanual response (i.e., selective stop task; stop left response, continue right response) or enacting an additional response (e.g., press left button as well as right button). Critically, both tasks involved some infrequent stimuli baring no behavioral imperative (i.e., they had to be ignored). EMG recordings of voluntary responses during stopping tasks revealed bimanual covert responses (muscle activation, which was suppressed before a button press ensued), consistent with a pause process, following both stop and ignore stimuli, before the required response was subsequently enacted. Critically, we also observed the behavioral consequences of a similar involuntary pause in trials where action cancellation was not part of the response set. Notably, the period over which movements were susceptible to response delays from additional stimuli was longer for older adults than younger adults. The findings demonstrate that an involuntary attentional component of inhibition significantly contributes to action cancellation processes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The role of interhemispheric communication during complete and partial cancellation of bimanual responses

Precise control of upper limb movements in response to external stimuli is vital to effectively interact with the environment. Accurate execution of bimanual movement is known to rely on finely orchestrated interhemispheric communication between the primary motor cortices (M1s). However, relatively little is known about the role of interhemispheric communication during sudden cancellation of prepared bimanual movement. The current study investigated the role of interhemispheric interactions during complete and partial cancellation of bimanual movement. In two experiments, healthy young human participants received transcranial magnetic stimulation to both M1s during a bimanual response inhibition task. The increased corticomotor excitability in anticipation of bimanual movement was accompanied by a release of inhibition from both M1s. After a stop cue, inhibition was reengaged onto both hemispheres to successfully cancel the complete bimanual response. However, when the stop cue signaled partial cancellation (stopping of one digit only), inhibition was reengaged with regard to the cancelled digit, but the responding digit representation was facilitated. This bifurcation in interhemispheric communication between M1s occurred 75 ms later in the more difficult condition when the nondominant, as opposed to dominant, hand was still responding. Our results demonstrate that interhemispheric communication is integral to response inhibition once a bimanual response has been prepared. Interestingly, M1-M1 interhemispheric circuitry does not appear to be responsible for the nonselective suppression of all movement components that has been observed during partial cancellation. Instead such interhemispheric communication enables uncoupling of bimanual response components and facilitates the selective initiation of just the required unimanual movement.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We provide the first evidence that interhemispheric communication plays an important role during sudden movement cancellation of two-handed responses. Simultaneously increased inhibition onto both hemispheres assists with two-handed movement cancellation. However, this network is not responsible for the widespread suppression of motor activity observed when only one of the two hands is cancelled. Instead, communication between hemispheres enables the separation of motor activity for the two hands and helps to execute the required one-handed response.

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.