Proactive Interhemispheric Disinhibition Supports Response Preparation during Selective Stopping

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.