While most research on stopping action examines how an initiated response is stopped when a signal occurs (i.e. reactively), everyday life also calls for a mechanism to prepare to stop a particular response tendency (i.e. proactively and selectively). We hypothesized that human subjects can prepare to stop a particular response by proactively suppressing that response representation in the brain. We tested this by using single pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and concurrent electromyography. This allowed us to interrogate the corticomotor excitability of specific response representations even before action ensued. We found that the motor-evoked potential (MEP) of the effector that might need to be stopped in the future was significantly reduced compared to when that effector was at rest. Further, this neural index of proactive and selective suppression predicted the subsequent selectivity with which the behavioral response was stopped. These results go further than earlier reports of reduced motor excitability when responses are stopped. They show that the control can be applied in advance (proactively) and also targeted at a particular response channel (selectively). This provides novel evidence for an active mechanism for suppression in the brain that is setup according to the subject's goals and even before action ensues.

Much research has focused on how people stop initiated response tendencies when instructed by a signal. Stopping of this kind appears to have global effects on the motor system. For example, by delivering transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the leg area of the primary motor cortex, it is possible to detect suppression in the leg when the hand is being stopped (Badry R et al. Suppression of human cortico-motoneuronal excitability during the stop-signal task. Clin Neurophysiol 120: 1717-1723, 2009). Here, we asked if such "global suppression" can be observed proactively, i.e., when people anticipate they might have to stop. We used a conditional stop signal task, which allows the measurement of both an "anticipation phase" (i.e., where proactive control is applied) and a "stopping" phase. TMS was delivered during the anticipation phase (experiment 1) and also during the stopping phase (experiments 1 and 2) to measure leg excitability. During the anticipation phase, we did not observe leg suppression, but we did during the stopping phase, consistent with Badry et al. (2009). Moreover, when we split the subject groups into those who slowed down behaviorally (i.e., exercised proactive control) and those who did not, we found that subjects who slowed did not show leg suppression when they stopped, whereas those who did not slow did show leg suppression when they stopped. These results suggest that if subjects prepare to stop, then they do so without global effects on the motor system. Thus, preparation allows them to stop more selectively.

Some situations require one to quickly stop an initiated response. Recent evidence suggests that rapid stopping engages a mechanism that has diffuse effects on the motor system. For example, stopping the hand dampens the excitability of the task-irrelevant leg. However, it is unclear whether this 'global suppression' could apply across wider motor modalities. Here we tested whether stopping speech leads to suppression of the task-irrelevant hand. We used Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation over the primary motor cortex with concurrent electromyography from the hand. We found that when speech was successfully stopped the motor evoked potential from the task-irrelevant hand was significantly reduced compared to when the participant failed to stop speaking, or responded on non stop signal trials, or compared to baseline. This shows that when speech is quickly stopped, there is a broad suppression across the motor system. This has implications for the neural basis of speech control and stuttering.

No abstract

No abstract