Common and Unique Inhibitory Control Signatures of Action-Stopping and Attentional Capture Suggest That Actions Are Stopped in Two Stages

Common and unique neurophysiological signatures for the stopping and revising of actions reveal the temporal dynamics of inhibitory control

Inhibitory control is a crucial cognitive-control ability for behavioral flexibility that has been extensively investigated through action-stopping tasks. Multiple neurophysiological features have been proposed to represent 'signatures' of inhibitory control during action-stopping, though the processes signified by these signatures are still controversially discussed. The present study aimed to disentangle these processes by comparing simple stopping situations with those in which additional action revisions were needed. Three experiments in female and male humans were performed to characterize the neurophysiological dynamics involved in action-stopping and - changing, with hypotheses derived from recently developed two-stage 'pause-then-cancel' models of inhibitory control. Both stopping and revising an action triggered an early broad 'pause'-process, marked by frontal EEG β-bursts and non-selective suppression of corticospinal excitability. However, partial-EMG responses showed that motor activity was only partially inhibited by this 'pause', and that this activity can be further modulated during action-revision. In line with two-stage models of inhibitory control, subsequent frontocentral EEG activity after this initial 'pause' selectively scaled depending on the required action revisions, with more activity observed for more complex revisions. This demonstrates the presence of a selective, effector-specific 'retune' phase as the second process involved in action-stopping and -revision. Together, these findings show that inhibitory control is implemented over an extended period of time and in at least two phases. We are further able to align the most commonly proposed neurophysiological signatures to these phases and show that they are differentially modulated by the complexity of action-revision.

Significance Statement

Inhibitory control is one of the most important control processes by which humans can regulate their behavior. Multiple neurophysiological signatures have been proposed to reflect inhibitory control. However, these play out on different time scales and appear to reflect different aspects of cognitive control, which are controversially debated.Recent two-stage models of inhibitory control have proposed that two phases implement the revisions of actions: 'pause' and 'retune'. Here, we provide the first empirical evidence for this proposition: Action revisions engendered a common initial low-latency 'pause', during which motor activity is broadly suppressed. Later activity, however, distinguishes between simple stopping of actions and more complex action revisions. These findings provide novel insights into the sequential dynamics of human action control.

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.

Attentional spatial cueing of the stop-signal affects the ability to suppress behavioural responses

The ability to adapt to the environment is linked to the possibility of inhibiting inappropriate behaviours, and this ability can be enhanced by attention. Despite this premise, the scientific literature that assesses how attention can influence inhibition is still limited. This study contributes to this topic by evaluating whether spatial and moving attentional cueing can influence inhibitory control. We employed a task in which subjects viewed a vertical bar on the screen that, from a central position, moved either left or right where two circles were positioned. Subjects were asked to respond by pressing a key when the motion of the bar was interrupted close to the circle (go signal). In about 40% of the trials, following the go signal and after a variable delay, a visual target appeared in either one of the circles, requiring response inhibition (stop signal). In most of the trials the stop signal appeared on the same side as the go signal (valid condition), while in the others, it appeared on the opposite side (invalid condition). We found that spatial and moving cueing facilitates inhibitory control in the valid condition. This facilitation was observed especially for stop signals that appeared within 250ms of the presentation of the go signal, thus suggesting an involvement of exogenous attentional orienting. This work demonstrates that spatial and moving cueing can influence inhibitory control, providing a contribution to the investigation of the relationship between spatial attention and inhibitory control.

Biophysical Modeling of Frontocentral ERP Generation Links Circuit-Level Mechanisms of Action-Stopping to a Behavioral Race Model

Human frontocentral event-related potentials (FC-ERPs) are ubiquitous neural correlates of cognition and control, but their generating multiscale mechanisms remain mostly unknown. We used the Human Neocortical Neurosolver's biophysical model of a canonical neocortical circuit under exogenous thalamic and cortical drive to simulate the cell and circuit mechanisms underpinning the P2, N2, and P3 features of the FC-ERP observed after Stop-Signals in the Stop-Signal task (SST; N = 234 humans, 137 female). We demonstrate that a sequence of simulated external thalamocortical and corticocortical drives can produce the FC-ERP, similar to what has been shown for primary sensory cortices. We used this model of the FC-ERP to examine likely circuit-mechanisms underlying FC-ERP features that distinguish between successful and failed action-stopping. We also tested their adherence to the predictions of the horse-race model of the SST, with specific hypotheses motivated by theoretical links between the P3 and Stop process. These simulations revealed that a difference in P3 onset between successful and failed Stops is most likely due to a later arrival of thalamocortical drive in failed Stops, rather than, for example, a difference in the effective strength of the input. In contrast, the same model predicted that early thalamocortical drives underpinning the P2 and N2 differed in both strength and timing across stopping accuracy conditions. Overall, this model generates novel testable predictions of the thalamocortical dynamics underlying FC-ERP generation during action-stopping. Moreover, it provides a detailed cellular and circuit-level interpretation that supports links between these macroscale signatures and predictions of the behavioral race model.

Action initiation and action inhibition follow the same time course when compared under matched experimental conditions

The ability to initiate an action quickly when needed and the ability to cancel an impending action are both fundamental to action control. It is often presumed that they are qualitatively distinct processes, yet they have largely been studied in isolation and little is known about how they relate to one another. Comparing previous experimental results shows a similar time course for response initiation and response inhibition. However, the exact time course varies widely depending on experimental conditions, including the frequency of different trial types and the urgency to respond. For example, in the stop-signal task, where both action initiation and action inhibition are involved and could be compared, action inhibition is typically found to be much faster. However, this apparent difference is likely due to there being much greater urgency to inhibit an action than to initiate one in order to avoid failing at the task. This asymmetry in the urgency between action initiation and action inhibition makes it impossible to compare their relative time courses in a single task. Here, we demonstrate that when action initiation and action inhibition are measured separately under conditions that are matched as closely as possible, their speeds are not distinguishable and are positively correlated across participants. Our results raise the possibility that action initiation and action inhibition may not necessarily be qualitatively distinct processes but may instead reflect complementary outcomes of a single decision process determining whether or not to act.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The time courses of initiating an action and canceling an action have largely been studied in isolation, and little is known about their relationship. Here, we show that when measured under comparable conditions the speeds of action initiation and action inhibition are the same. This finding raises the possibility that these two functions may be more closely related than previously assumed, with potentially important implications for their underlying neural basis.

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.

A touching advantage: cross-modal stop-signals improve reactive response inhibition

The ability to inhibit an already initiated response is crucial for navigating the environment. However, it is unclear which characteristics make stop-signals more likely to be processed efficiently. In three consecutive studies, we demonstrate that stop-signal modality and location are key factors that influence reactive response inhibition. Study 1 shows that tactile stop-signals lead to better performance compared to visual stop-signals in an otherwise visual choice-reaction task. Results of Study 2 reveal that the location of the stop-signal matters. Specifically, if a visual stop-signal is presented at a different location compared to the visual go-signal, then stopping performance is enhanced. Extending these results, study 3 suggests that tactile stop-signals and location-distinct visual stop-signals retain their performance enhancing effect when visual distractors are presented at the location of the go-signal. In sum, these results confirm that stop-signal modality and location influence reactive response inhibition, even in the face of concurrent distractors. Future research may extend and generalize these findings to other cross-modal setups.

Examining motor evidence for the pause-then-cancel model of action-stopping: Insights from motor system physiology

Stopping initiated actions is fundamental to adaptive behavior. Longstanding, single-process accounts of action-stopping have been challenged by recent, two-process, 'pause-then-cancel' models. These models propose that action-stopping involves two inhibitory processes: 1) a fast Pause process, which broadly suppresses the motor system as the result of detecting any salient event, and 2) a slower Cancel process, which involves motor suppression specific to the cancelled action. A purported signature of the Pause process is global suppression, or the reduced corticospinal excitability (CSE) of task-unrelated effectors early on in action-stopping. However, unlike the Pause process, few (if any) motor system signatures of a Cancel process have been identified. Here, we used single- and paired-pulse TMS methods to comprehensively measure the local physiological excitation and inhibition of both responding and task-unrelated motor effector systems during action-stopping. Specifically, we measured CSE, short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), and the duration of the cortical silent period (CSP). Consistent with key predictions from the pause-then-cancel model, CSE measurements at the responding effector indicated that additional suppression was necessary to counteract Go-related increases in CSE during-action-stopping, particularly at later timepoints. Increases in SICI on Stop-signal trials did not differ across responding and non-responding effectors, or across timepoints. This suggests SICI as a potential source of global suppression. Increases in CSP duration on Stop-signal trials were more prominent at later timepoints. SICI and CSP duration therefore appeared most consistent with the Pause and Cancel processes, respectively. Our study provides further evidence from motor system physiology that multiple inhibitory processes influence action-stopping.

A novel approach to modulating response inhibition: Multi-channel beta transcranial alternating current stimulation

BACKGROUND

Deficits in response inhibition are associated with numerous psychiatric disorders. Previous studies have revealed the crucial role of the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG), pre-supplementary motor area (preSMA), and beta activity in these brain regions in response inhibition. Multi-channel transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) has garnered significant attention for its ability to modulate neural oscillations in brain networks. In this study, we employed multi-channel tACS targeting rIFG-preSMA network to investigate its impact on response inhibition in healthy adults.

METHODS

In Experiment 1, 70 healthy participants were randomly assigned to receive 20 Hz in-phase, anti-phase, or sham stimulation over rIFG-preSMA network. Response inhibition was assessed using the stop-signal task during and after stimulation, and impulsiveness was measured via the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Additionally, 25 participants received stimulation at the left supraorbital area to account for potential effects of the "return" electrode. Experiment 2, consisting of 25 participants, was conducted to validate the primary findings of Experiment 1, including both in-phase and sham stimulation conditions, based on prior estimations derived from the results of Experiment 1.

RESULTS

In Experiment 1, we found that in-phase stimulation significantly improved response inhibition compared with sham stimulation, whereas anti-phase stimulation did not. These findings were consistently replicated in Experiment 2. We also conducted an exploratory analysis of the multi-channel tACS impact, revealing that its effects primarily emerged during the post-stimulation phase. Furthermore, individuals with higher baseline attentional impulsiveness showed greater improvements in the in-phase stimulation group.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that in-phase beta-tACS over rIFG-preSMA network can effectively improve response inhibition in healthy adults and provides a new potential treatment for patients with deficits in response inhibition.

Inhibition of lexical representations after violated semantic predictions

There is a consensus that humans predict upcoming words during sentence processing. Prediction makes language comprehension fast and efficient if this anticipatory processing is accurate. However, often times, predictions are not correct. There is a lack of research investigating the cognitive operations at play when predictions are violated. According to several proposals, such violations lead to an inhibition of the predicted word to facilitate the integration of the unexpected word. Across four experiments, we have tested whether predicted words are indeed inhibited when listeners encounter unexpected stimuli, and whether the linguistic status (word or sound) and semantic congruency of a word (plausible or implausible) influences this purported inhibitory process. Using a Cross-Modal Lexical Priming paradigm, we showed that when predictions are violated, the activation of the predicted word is inhibited, resulting in increased reaction times. These inhibitory effects appear to be language specific, in that they are only observed after unexpected words, as opposed to non-linguistic sounds (tones). However, contrary to a long-held assumption in the field of sentence processing, inhibitory effects are not modulated by the semantic congruency of the unexpected word (i.e., whether the unexpected word is plausible within the sentence context). Indeed, in the current study, any linguistic information that violated listeners' semantic prediction resulted in the inhibition of the predicted word. Thus, the current findings are more compatible with a view in which unexpected linguistic events that are meaningful engage inhibitory processes with the specific purpose of inhibiting the predicted, though out-of-date, word.

Biophysical modeling of frontocentral ERP generation links circuit-level mechanisms of action-stopping to a behavioral race model

Human frontocentral event-related potentials (FC-ERPs) are ubiquitous neural correlates of cognition and control, but their generating multiscale mechanisms remain mostly unknown. We used the Human Neocortical Neurosolver(HNN)'s biophysical model of a canonical neocortical circuit under exogenous thalamic and cortical drive to simulate the cell and circuit mechanisms underpinning the P2, N2, and P3 features of the FC-ERP observed after Stop-Signals in the Stop-Signal task (SST). We demonstrate that a sequence of simulated external thalamocortical and cortico-cortical drives can produce the FC-ERP, similar to what has been shown for primary sensory cortices. We used this model of the FC-ERP to examine likely circuit-mechanisms underlying FC-ERP features that distinguish between successful and failed action-stopping. We also tested their adherence to the predictions of the horse-race model of the SST, with specific hypotheses motivated by theoretical links between the P3 and Stop process. These simulations revealed that a difference in P3 onset between successful and failed Stops is most likely due to a later arrival of thalamocortical drive in failed Stops, rather than, for example, a difference in effective strength of the input. In contrast, the same model predicted that early thalamocortical drives underpinning the P2 and N2 differed in both strength and timing across stopping accuracy conditions. Overall, this model generates novel testable predictions of the thalamocortical dynamics underlying FC-ERP generation during action-stopping. Moreover, it provides a detailed cellular and circuit-level interpretation that supports links between these macroscale signatures and predictions of the behavioral race model.

Dual-site beta tACS over rIFG and M1 enhances response inhibition: A parallel multiple control and replication study

Response inhibition is a core component of cognitive control. Past electrophysiology and neuroimaging studies have identified beta oscillations and inhibitory control cortical regions correlated with response inhibition, including the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG) and primary motor cortex (M1). Hence, increasing beta activity in multiple brain regions is a potential way to enhance response inhibition. Here, a novel dual-site transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) method was used to modulate beta activity over the rIFG-M1 network in a sample of 115 (excluding 2 participants) with multiple control groups and a replicated experimental design. In Experiment 1, 70 healthy participants were randomly assigned to three dual-site beta-tACS groups, including in-phase, anti-phase or sham stimulation. During and after stimulation, participants were required to complete the stop-signal task, and electroencephalography (EEG) was collected before and after stimulation. The Barratt Impulsiveness Scale was completed before the experiment to evaluate participants' impulsiveness. In addition, we conducted an active control experiment with a sample size of 20 to exclude the potential effects of the dual-site tACS "return" electrode. To validate the behavioural findings of Experiment 1, 25 healthy participants took part in Experiment 2 and were randomized into two groups, including in-phase and sham stimulation groups. We found that compared to the sham group, in-phase but not anti-phase beta-tACS significantly improved both response inhibition performance and beta synchronization of the inhibitory control network in Experiment 1. Furthermore, the increased beta synchronization was correlated with enhanced response inhibition. In an independent sample of Experiment 2, the enhanced response inhibition performance observed in the in-phase group was replicated. After combining the data from the above two experiments, the time dynamics analysis revealed that the in-phase beta-tACS effect occurred in the post-stimulation period but not the stimulation period. The state-dependence analysis showed that individuals with poorer baseline response inhibition or higher attentional impulsiveness had greater improvement in response inhibition for the in-phase group. These findings strongly support that response inhibition in healthy adults can be improved by in-phase dual-site beta-tACS of the rIFG-M1 network, and provide a new potential treatment targets of synchronized cortical network activity for patients with clinically deficient response inhibition.

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.

Measuring the nonselective effects of motor inhibition using isometric force recordings

Inhibition is a key cognitive control mechanism humans use to enable goal-directed behavior. When rapidly exerted, inhibitory control has broad, nonselective motor effects, typically demonstrated using corticospinal excitability measurements (CSE) elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). For example, during rapid action-stopping, CSE is suppressed at both stopped and task-unrelated muscles. While such TMS-based CSE measurements have provided crucial insights into the fronto-basal ganglia circuitry underlying inhibitory control, they have several downsides. TMS is contraindicated in many populations (e.g., epilepsy or deep-brain stimulation patients), has limited temporal resolution, produces distracting auditory and haptic stimulation, is difficult to combine with other imaging methods, and necessitates expensive, immobile equipment. Here, we attempted to measure the nonselective motor effects of inhibitory control using a method unaffected by these shortcomings. Thirty male and female human participants exerted isometric force on a high-precision handheld force transducer while performing a foot-response stop-signal task. Indeed, when foot movements were successfully stopped, force output at the task-irrelevant hand was suppressed as well. Moreover, this nonselective reduction of isometric force was highly correlated with stop-signal performance and showed frequency dynamics similar to established inhibitory signatures typically found in neural and muscle recordings. Together, these findings demonstrate that isometric force recordings can reliably capture the nonselective effects of motor inhibition, opening the door to many applications that are hard or impossible to realize with TMS.

Exogenous verbal response inhibition in adults who do and do not stutter

INTRODUCTION

Behavioral and questionnaire-based studies suggest that children who stutter (CWS) exhibit poorer response inhibition than children who do not stutter (CWNS). However, the behavioral findings in adults who stutter (AWS) are less unequivocal and mainly based on manual response inhibition. Further study is therefore needed, especially given the lack of studies on verbal response inhibition among these groups.

METHODS

Thirteen AWS and 14 adults who do not stutter (AWNS) participated in a verbal stop signal task (SST) in which they were asked to read aloud six Chinese characters as fast as possible during the go-signal and ignore-signal trials and refrain from naming them during the stop-signal trials.

RESULTS

The two groups showed a comparable response reaction time in the go-signal and ignore-signal trial conditions. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in terms of the stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) and accuracy. However, a significant positive correlation was found between SSRT and the frequency of stuttering in conversation but not in reading.

CONCLUSION

Current findings seem to provide additional support that exogenously triggered response inhibition among AWS does not differ from AWNS. The association between stuttering frequency and SSRT seems to suggest that individuals with more severe stuttering in conversational speech have reduced exogenous response inhibition. However, this finding needs to be further explored in future studies using different measures of stuttering severity.

β-Bursts over Frontal Cortex Track the Surprise of Unexpected Events in Auditory, Visual, and Tactile Modalities

One of the fundamental ways in which the brain regulates and monitors behavior is by making predictions about the sensory environment and adjusting behavior when those expectations are violated. As such, surprise is one of the fundamental computations performed by the human brain. In recent years, it has been well established that one key aspect by which behavior is adjusted during surprise is inhibitory control of the motor system. Moreover, because surprise automatically triggers inhibitory control without much proactive influence, it can provide unique insights into largely reactive control processes. Recent years have seen tremendous interest in burst-like β frequency events in the human (and nonhuman) local field potential-especially over (p)FC-as a potential signature of inhibitory control. To date, β-bursts have only been studied in paradigms involving a substantial amount of proactive control (such as the stop-signal task). Here, we used two cross-modal oddball tasks to investigate whether surprise processing is accompanied by increases in scalp-recorded β-bursts. Indeed, we found that unexpected events in all tested sensory domains (haptic, auditory, visual) were followed by low-latency increases in β-bursting over frontal cortex. Across experiments, β-burst rates were positively correlated with estimates of surprise derived from Shannon's information theory, a type of surprise that represents the degree to which a given stimulus violates prior expectations. As such, the current work clearly implicates frontal β-bursts as a signature of surprise processing. We discuss these findings in the context of common frameworks of inhibitory and cognitive control after unexpected events.

Moving beyond response times with accessible measures of manual dynamics

Button-press measures of response time (RT) and accuracy have long served a central role in psychological research. However, RT and accuracy provide limited insight into how cognitive processes unfold over time. To address this limitation, researchers have used hand-tracking techniques to investigate how cognitive processes unfold over the course of a response, are modulated by recent experience, and function across the lifespan. Despite the efficacy of these techniques for investigating a wide range of psychological phenomena, widespread adoption of hand-tracking techniques within the field is hindered by a range of factors, including equipment costs and the use of specialized software. Here, we demonstrate that the behavioral dynamics previously observed with specialized motion-tracking equipment in an Eriksen flanker task can be captured with an affordable, portable, and easy-to-assemble response box. Six-to-eight-year-olds and adults (N = 90) completed a computerized version of the flanker task by pressing and holding a central button until a stimulus array appeared. Participants then responded by releasing the central button and reaching to press one of two response buttons. This method allowed RT to be separated into initiation time (when the central button was released) and movement time (time elapsed between initiation and completion of the response). Consistent with previous research using motion-tracking techniques, initiation times and movement times revealed distinct patterns of effects across trials and between age groups, indicating that the method used in the current study presents a simple solution for researchers from across the psychological and brain sciences looking to move beyond RTs.

Two Types of Motor Inhibition after Action Errors in Humans

Adaptive behavior requires the ability to appropriately react to action errors. Post-error slowing (PES) of response times is one of the most reliable phenomena in human behavior. It has been proposed that PES is partially achieved through inhibition of the motor system. However, there is no direct evidence for this link, or indeed, that the motor system is physiologically inhibited after errors altogether. Here, we used transcranial magnetic stimulation and electromyography to measure corticospinal excitability (CSE) across four experiments using a Simon task, in which female and male human participants sometimes committed errors. Errors were followed by reduced CSE at two different time points and in two different modes. Shortly after error commission (250 ms), CSE was broadly suppressed (i.e., even task-unrelated motor effectors were inhibited). During the preparation of the subsequent response, CSE was specifically reduced at task-relevant effectors only. This latter effect was directly related to PES, with stronger CSE suppression accompanying greater PES. This suggests that PES is achieved through increased inhibitory control during post-error responses. To provide converging evidence, we then reanalyzed an openly available EEG dataset that contained both Simon- and Stop-signal tasks using independent component analysis. We found that the same neural source component that indexed action cancellation in the stop-signal task also showed clear PES-related activity during post-error responses in the Simon task. Together, these findings provide evidence that post-error adaptation is partially achieved through motor inhibition. Moreover, inhibition is engaged in two modes (first nonselective, then selective), aligning with recent multistage theories of error processing.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT It is a common observation that humans implement a higher degree of caution when repeating an action during which they just committed a mistake. In the laboratory, such increased "caution" is reflected in post-error slowing of response latencies. Many competing theories exist regarding the precise neural mechanisms underlying post-error slowing. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation, we show that, after error commission, the human corticomotor system is momentarily inhibited, both immediately after an error and during the preparation of the next action. Moreover, motor inhibition during the latter time period is directly predictive of post-error slowing. This shows that inhibitory control is a key mechanism humans engage to regulate their own behavior in the aftermath of error commission.

A causal role for the human subthalamic nucleus in non-selective cortico-motor inhibition

Common cortico-basal ganglia models of motor control suggest a key role for the subthalamic nucleus (STN) in motor inhibition.1-3 In particular, when already-initiated actions have to be suddenly stopped, the STN is purportedly recruited via a hyperdirect pathway to net inhibit the cortico-motor system in a broad, non-selective fashion.4 Indeed, the suppression of cortico-spinal excitability (CSE) during rapid action stopping extends beyond the stopped muscle and affects even task-irrelevant motor representations.5,6 Although such non-selective CSE suppression has long been attributed to the broad inhibitory influence of STN on the motor system, causal evidence for this association is hitherto lacking. Here, 20 Parkinson's disease patients treated with STN deep-brain stimulation (DBS) and 20 matched healthy controls performed a verbal stop-signal task while CSE was measured from a task-unrelated hand muscle. DBS allowed a causal manipulation of STN, while CSE was measured using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over primary motor cortex and concurrent electromyography. In patients OFF-DBS and controls, the CSE of the hand was non-selectively suppressed when the verbal response was successfully stopped. Crucially, this effect disappeared when STN was disrupted via DBS in the patient group. Using this unique combination of DBS and TMS during human behavior, the current study provides first causal evidence that STN is likely involved in non-selectively suppressing the physiological excitability of the cortico-motor system during action stopping. This confirms a core prediction of long-held cortico-basal ganglia circuit models of movement. The absence of cortico-motor inhibition during STN-DBS may also provide potential insights into the common side effects of STN-DBS, such as increased impulsivity.7-11.

TMS reveals distinct patterns of proactive and reactive inhibition in motor system activity

Response inhibition is our ability to suppress or cancel actions when required. Deficits in response inhibition are linked with a range of psychopathological disorders including addiction and OCD. Studies on response inhibition have largely focused on reactive inhibition-stopping an action when explicitly cued. Less work has examined proactive inhibition-preparation to stop ahead of time. In the current experiment, we studied both reactive and proactive inhibition by adopting a two-step continuous performance task (e.g., "AX"-CPT) often used to study cognitive control. By combining a dot pattern expectancy (DPX) version of this task with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), we mapped changes in reactive and proactive inhibition within the motor system. Measured using motor-evoked potentials, we found modulation of corticospinal excitability at critical timepoints during the DPX when participants were preparing in advance to inhibit a response (at step 1: during the cue) and while inhibiting a response (at step 2: during the probe). Notably, motor system activity during early timepoints was predicted by a behavioural index of proactive capacity and could predict whether participants would later successfully inhibit their response. Our findings demonstrate that combining TMS with a two-step CPT such as the DPX can be useful for studying reactive and proactive inhibition, and reveal that successful inhibition is determined earlier than previously thought.

Neural correlates of unpredictable Stop and non‐Stop cues in overt and imagined execution

The ability to inhibit incorrect behaviors is crucial for survival. In real contexts, cues that require stopping usually appear intermixed with indications to continue the ongoing action. However, in the classical Stop‐signal task (SST), the unpredictable stimuli are always signals that require inhibition. To understand the neural mechanisms activated by low‐probability nonstop cues, we recorded the electroencephalography from 23 young volunteers while they performed a modified SST where the unpredictable stimuli could be either Stop or confirmatory Go signals (CGo). To isolate the influence of motor output, the SST was performed during overt and covert execution. We found that, paradoxically, CGo stimuli activated motor inhibition processes, and evoked patterns of brain activity similar to those obtained after Stop signals (N2/P3 event‐related potentials and midfrontal theta power increase), though in lesser magnitude. These patterns were also observed during the imagined performance. Finally, applying machine learning procedures, we found that the brain activity evoked after CGo versus Stop signals can be classified above chance during both, overt and imagined execution. Our results provide evidence that unpredictable signals cause motor inhibition even when they require to continue an ongoing action.

This study advances our understanding of the neural correlates of inhibition by using a modified Stop‐signal task where Stop signals were intermixed with cues to continue the ongoing action (CGo signals). CGo signals produced motor inhibition and EEG activity similar to Stop signals (both during overt and imagined performance). The neural activity related to CGo vs Stop signals could be decoded using a machine learning algorithm, indicating that Stop signals evoke a specific pattern of EEG activity.

Right inferior frontal gyrus damage is associated with impaired initiation of inhibitory control, but not its implementation

Inhibitory control is one of the most important control functions in the human brain. Much of our understanding of its neural basis comes from seminal work showing that lesions to the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG) increase stop-signal reaction time (SSRT), a latent variable that expresses the speed of inhibitory control. However, recent work has identified substantial limitations of the SSRT method. Notably, SSRT is confounded by trigger failures: stop-signal trials in which inhibitory control was never initiated. Such trials inflate SSRT, but are typically indicative of attentional, rather than inhibitory deficits. Here, we used hierarchical Bayesian modeling to identify stop-signal trigger failures in human rIFG lesion patients, non-rIFG lesion patients, and healthy comparisons. Furthermore, we measured scalp-EEG to detect β-bursts, a neurophysiological index of inhibitory control. rIFG lesion patients showed a more than fivefold increase in trigger failure trials and did not exhibit the typical increase of stop-related frontal β-bursts. However, on trials in which such β-bursts did occur, rIFG patients showed the typical subsequent upregulation of β over sensorimotor areas, indicating that their ability to implement inhibitory control, once triggered, remains intact. These findings suggest that the role of rIFG in inhibitory control has to be fundamentally reinterpreted.

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.

Cortical sensorimotor activity in the execution and suppression of discrete and rhythmic movements

Although the engagement of sensorimotor cortices in movement is well documented, the functional relevance of brain activity patterns remains ambiguous. Especially, the cortical engagement specific to the pre-, within-, and post-movement periods is poorly understood. The present study addressed this issue by examining sensorimotor EEG activity during the performance as well as STOP-signal cued suppression of movements pertaining to two distinct classes, namely, discrete vs. ongoing rhythmic movements. Our findings indicate that the lateralized readiness potential (LRP), which is classically used as a marker of pre-movement processing, indexes multiple pre- and in- movement-related brain dynamics in a movement-class dependent fashion. In- and post-movement event-related (de)synchronization (ERD/ERS) observed in the Mu (8-13 Hz) and Beta (15-30 Hz) frequency ranges were associated with estimated brain sources in both motor and somatosensory cortical areas. Notwithstanding, Beta ERS occurred earlier following cancelled than actually performed movements. In contrast, Mu power did not vary. Whereas Beta power may reflect the evaluation of the sensory predicted outcome, Mu power might engage in linking perception to action. Additionally, the rhythmic movement forced stop (only) showed a post-movement Mu/Beta rebound, which might reflect an active "clearing-out" of the motor plan and its feedback-based online control. Overall, the present study supports the notion that sensorimotor EEG modulations are key markers to investigate control or executive processes, here initiation and inhibition, which are exerted when performing distinct movement classes.

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.