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

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.

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.

Recent advances in treatment of spatial neglect: networks and neuropsychology

INTRODUCTION

Spatial neglect remains an underdiagnosed and undertreated consequence of stroke that imposes significant disability. A growing appreciation of brain networks involved in spatial cognition is helping us to develop a mechanistic understanding of different therapies under development.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on neuromodulation of brain networks for the treatment of spatial neglect after stroke, using evidence-based approaches including 1) Cognitive strategies that are more likely to impact frontal lobe executive function networks; 2) Visuomotor adaptation, which may depend on the integrity of parietal and parieto- and subcortical-frontal connections and the presence of a particular subtype of neglect labeled Aiming neglect; 3) Non-invasive brain stimulation that may modulate relative levels of activity of the two hemispheres and depend on corpus callosum connectivity; and 4) Pharmacological modulation that may exert its effect primarily via right-lateralized networks more closely involved in arousal.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite promising results from individual studies, significant methodological heterogeneity between trials weakened conclusions drawn from meta-analyses. Improved classification of spatial neglect subtypes will benefit research and clinical care. Understanding the brain network mechanisms of different treatments and different types of spatial neglect will make possible a precision medicine treatment approach.

Dual-site TMS as a tool to probe effective interactions within the motor network: a review

Dual-site transcranial magnetic stimulation (ds-TMS) is well suited to investigate the causal effect of distant brain regions on the primary motor cortex, both at rest and during motor performance and learning. However, given the broad set of stimulation parameters, clarity about which parameters are most effective for identifying particular interactions is lacking. Here, evidence describing inter- and intra-hemispheric interactions during rest and in the context of motor tasks is reviewed. Our aims are threefold: (1) provide a detailed overview of ds-TMS literature regarding inter- and intra-hemispheric connectivity; (2) describe the applicability and contributions of these interactions to motor control, and; (3) discuss the practical implications and future directions. Of the 3659 studies screened, 109 were included and discussed. Overall, there is remarkable variability in the experimental context for assessing ds-TMS interactions, as well as in the use and reporting of stimulation parameters, hindering a quantitative comparison of results across studies. Further studies examining ds-TMS interactions in a systematic manner, and in which all critical parameters are carefully reported, are needed.

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.

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.

OSARI, an Open-Source Anticipated Response Inhibition Task

The stop-signal paradigm has become ubiquitous in investigations of inhibitory control. Tasks inspired by the paradigm, referred to as stop-signal tasks, require participants to make responses on go trials and to inhibit those responses when presented with a stop-signal on stop trials. Currently, the most popular version of the stop-signal task is the 'choice-reaction' variant, where participants make choice responses, but must inhibit those responses when presented with a stop-signal. An alternative to the choice-reaction variant of the stop-signal task is the 'anticipated response inhibition' task. In anticipated response inhibition tasks, participants are required to make a planned response that coincides with a predictably timed event (such as lifting a finger from a computer key to stop a filling bar at a predefined target). Anticipated response inhibition tasks have some advantages over the more traditional choice-reaction stop-signal tasks and are becoming increasingly popular. However, currently, there are no openly available versions of the anticipated response inhibition task, limiting potential uptake. Here, we present an open-source, free, and ready-to-use version of the anticipated response inhibition task, which we refer to as the OSARI (the Open-Source Anticipated Response Inhibition) task.

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.