The ability to inhibit a prepotent response is a crucial prerequisite of goal-directed behavior. So far, research on response inhibition has mainly examined these processes when there is little to no cognitive control during the decision to respond. We manipulated the “context” in which response inhibition has to be exerted (i.e., a controlled or an automated context) by combining a Simon task with a go/no-go task and focus on theta-band activity. To investigate the role of “context” in response inhibition, we also examined how far theta-band activity in the pretrial period modulates context-dependent variations of theta-band activity during response inhibition. This was done in an EEG study applying beamforming methods. Here, we examined n = 43 individuals. We show that an automated context, as opposed to a controlled context, compromises response inhibition performance and increases the need for cognitive control. This was also related to context-dependent modulations of theta-band activity in superior frontal and middle frontal regions. Of note, results showed that theta-band activity in the pretrial period, associated with the right inferior frontal cortex, was substantially correlated with context-dependent modulations of theta-band activity during response inhibition. The direction of the obtained correlation provides insights into the functional relevance of a pretrial theta-band activity. The data suggest that pretrial theta-band activity reflects some form of attentional sampling to inform possible upcoming processes signaling the need for cognitive control.

Recently, a study was conducted in the Netherlands to evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and its associated lockdown periods on academic functioning, mood, and health correlates, such as alcohol consumption. The Dutch study revealed that lockdowns were associated with significantly poorer mood and reductions in perceived immune fitness. Overall, a reduction in alcohol consumption during lockdown periods was shown. Academic functioning in terms of self-reported performance was unaffected. However, a significant reduction in interactions with other students and teachers was reported. However, there was considerable variability among students; both increases and reductions in alcohol consumption were reported, as well as both improvements and poorer academic functioning during periods of lockdown. The aim of the current online study was to replicate these findings in Germany. To achieve this, a slightly modified version of the survey was administered among young adults (aged 18 to 35 years old) in Germany. The survey assessed possible changes in self-reported academic functioning, mood, and health correlates, such as smoking and alcohol consumption, perceived immune functioning, and sleep quality during periods of lockdown as compared to periods with no lockdowns. Retrospective assessments were made for five periods, including (1) ‘BP’ (the period before the COVID-19 pandemic), (2) ‘L1’ (the first lockdown period, March–May 2020), (3) ‘NL1’ (the first no-lockdown period, summer 2020), (4) ‘L2’ (the second lockdown, November 2020 to May 2021), and (5) ‘NL2’ (the second no-lockdown period, summer 2021). This article describes the content of the survey and the corresponding dataset. The survey was completed by 371 participants.

Background: Previous studies in Dutch young adults revealed that individuals with self-reported impaired wound healing reported poorer mood, increased inattention and impulsivity, poorer quality of life, and poorer immune fitness compared to healthy controls. Another study revealed that the negative impact of lockdowns during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic was significantly more profound among the impaired wound healing group than the control group. The purpose of the current study was to replicate and extend these findings among young adults living in Germany. Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional survey was conducted among N = 317 young adults living in Germany, 18–35 years old. They were allocated to the IWH group (N = 66) or the control group (N-251). Participants completed the Attention Control Scale, and mood, quality of life, and immune fitness were assessed with single-item ratings. All assessments were made for (1) the period before the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) the first lockdown period, March–May 2020, (3) the first no-lockdown period, summer 2020, (4) the second lockdown, November 2020 to May 2021, and (5) the second no-lockdown period, summer 2021. Results: The impaired wound healing group reported significantly poorer mood, quality of life, and immune fitness. The effects were evident before the pandemic. The impaired wound healing group scored significantly poorer on attention focusing, but no significant differences between the groups were found for attention shifting. During the pandemic, negative lockdown effects (i.e., further aggravation of mood and immune fitness and lower quality of life) were evident in both groups but significantly more profound in the impaired wound healing group. No differences between the groups were found for the no-lockdown periods. Conclusion: Individuals with self-reported impaired wound healing have significantly poorer mood, attention focusing, and immune fitness and report a poorer quality of life than healthy controls. The impact of COVID-19 lockdowns was significantly more profound in the impaired wound-healing group.

Reward and cognitive control play crucial roles in shaping goal-directed behavior. Yet, the behavioral and neural underpinnings of interactive effects of both processes in driving our actions towards a particular goal have remained rather unclear. Given the importance of inhibitory control, we investigated the effect of reward prospect on the modulatory influence of automatic versus controlled processes during response inhibition. For this, a performance-contingent monetary reward for both correct response selection and response inhibition was added to a Simon NoGo task, which manipulates the relationship of automatic and controlled processes in Go and NoGo trials. A neurophysiological approach was used by combining EEG temporal signal decomposition and source localization methods. Compared to a non-rewarded control group, rewarded participants showed faster response execution, as well as overall lower response selection and inhibition accuracy (shifted speed-accuracy tradeoff). Interestingly, the reward group displayed a larger interference of the interactive effects of automatic versus controlled processes during response inhibition (i.e., a larger Simon NoGo effect), but not during response selection. The reward-specific behavioral effect was mirrored by the P3 amplitude, underlining the importance of stimulus–response association processes in explaining variability in response inhibition performance. The selective reward-induced neurophysiological modulation was associated with lower activation differences in relevant structures spanning the inferior frontal and parietal cortex, as well as higher activation differences in the somatosensory cortex. Taken together, this study highlights relevant neuroanatomical structures underlying selective reward effects on response inhibition and extends previous reports on the possible detrimental effect of reward-triggered performance trade-offs on cognitive control processes.

Behavioral flexibility and goal-directed behavior heavily depend on fronto-striatal networks. Within these circuits, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and glutamate play an important role in (motor) response inhibition, but it has remained largely unclear whether they are also relevant for cognitive inhibition. We hence investigated the functional role of these transmitters for cognitive inhibition during cognitive flexibility. Healthy young adults performed two paradigms assessing different aspects of cognitive flexibility. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) was used to quantify GABA+ and total glutamate/glutamine (Glx) levels in the striatum and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) referenced to N-acetylaspartate (NAA). We observed typical task switching and backward inhibition effects, but striatal and ACC concentrations of GABA+/NAA and Glx/NAA were not associated with cognitive flexibility in a functionally relevant manner. The assumption of null effects was underpinned by Bayesian testing. These findings suggest that behavioral and cognitive inhibition are functionally distinct faculties, that depend on (at least partly) different brain structures and neurotransmitter systems. While previous studies consistently demonstrated that motor response inhibition is modulated by ACC and striatal GABA levels, our results suggest that the functionally distinct cognitive inhibition required for successful switching is not, or at least to a much lesser degree, modulated by these factors.