On Stopping Voluntary Muscle Relaxations and Contractions: Evidence for Shared Control Mechanisms and Muscle State-Specific Active Breaking

Failing to attend versus failing to stop: Single-trial decomposition of action-stopping in the stop signal task

The capacity to stop impending or ongoing actions contributes to executive control over behavior. Action-stopping, however, is difficult to directly quantify. It is therefore assayed via computational modeling of behavior in the stop signal task to estimate the latency of stopping (stop signal reaction time, SSRT) and, more recently, the reliability of stopping in terms of the distribution of SSRTs (standard deviation, SD-SSRT) and the frequency with which one outright fails to react to a stop signal (trigger failures, TF). Critically, the validity of computational estimates remains unknown because we currently have no direct readouts of behavior against which to compare them. Here, we developed a method for providing single-trial behavioral readouts of SSRT and trigger failures. The method relies on an adaptation of the stop signal task in which participants respond by moving a computer mouse. In two online experiments, we used movement kinematics to quantify stopping performance (SSRT, SD-SSRT, and TF), and then applied the standard Race Model and recent BEESTS model in order to examine the convergent validity of the methods. Overall, we demonstrate good correspondence between kinematics- and model-based estimates of stopping performance at the group and individual level. We conclude that the new method provides valid estimates of stopping performance that, unlike model-based estimates, can be read out at the level of single trials. Our approach might therefore be useful for interrogating single-trial neurophysiological correlates of stopping and for large-scale, online studies of behavioral stopping.

Partial response electromyography as a marker of action stopping

Response inhibition is among the core constructs of cognitive control. It is notoriously difficult to quantify from overt behavior, since the outcome of successful inhibition is the lack of a behavioral response. Currently, the most common measure of action stopping, and by proxy response inhibition, is the model-based stop signal reaction time (SSRT) derived from the stop signal task. Recently, partial response electromyography (prEMG) has been introduced as a complementary physiological measure to capture individual stopping latencies. PrEMG refers to muscle activity initiated by the go signal that plummets after the stop signal before its accumulation to a full response. Whereas neither the SSRT nor the prEMG is an unambiguous marker for neural processes underlying response inhibition, our analysis indicates that the prEMG peak latency is better suited to investigate brain mechanisms of action stopping. This study is a methodological resource with a comprehensive overview of the psychometric properties of the prEMG in a stop signal task, and further provides practical tips for data collection and analysis.

Multiple Brain Sources Are Differentially Engaged in the Inhibition of Distinct Action Types

Most studies contributing to identify the brain network for inhibitory control have investigated the cancelation of prepared-discrete actions, thus focusing on an isolated and short-lived chunk of human behavior. Aborting ongoing-continuous actions is an equally crucial ability but remains little explored. Although discrete and ongoing-continuous rhythmic actions are associated with partially overlapping yet largely distinct brain activations, it is unknown whether the inhibitory network operates similarly in both situations. Thus, distinguishing between action types constitutes a powerful means to investigate whether inhibition is a generic function. We, therefore, used independent component analysis (ICA) of EEG data and show that canceling a discrete action and aborting a rhythmic action rely on independent brain components. The ICA showed that a delta/theta power increase generically indexed inhibitory activity, whereas N2 and P3 ERP waves did so in an action-specific fashion. The action-specific components were generated by partially distinct brain sources, which indicates that the inhibitory network is engaged differently when canceling a prepared-discrete action versus aborting an ongoing-continuous action. In particular, increased activity was estimated in precentral gyri and posterior parts of the cingulate cortex for action canceling, whereas an enhanced activity was found in more frontal gyri and anterior parts of the cingulate cortex for action aborting. Overall, the present findings support the idea that inhibitory control is differentially implemented according to the type of action to revise.