A single mechanism for global and selective response inhibition under the influence of motor preparation

Abstract

In our everyday behavior, we frequently cancel one movement while continuing others. Two competing models have been suggested for the cancellation of specific actions: 1) An abrupt global inhibition followed by the restart of the other previously initiated actions, or 2) the parallel operation of distinct global and selective inhibitory mechanisms. To evaluate these models, we examined behavioral and physiological markers of proactive control, motor preparation, and response inhibition using a combination of task performance measures, electromyography, electroencephalography, and motor evoked potentials elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Healthy participants performed two versions of a stop signal task with cues incorporating proactive control: A unimanual task involving the initiation and inhibition of a single movement, and a bimanual task involving the selective stopping of one of two prepared responses. Stopping latencies, motor evoked potentials, and frontal beta power (13-20 Hz) did not differ between the uni-and bimanual tasks. However, evidence for selective proactive control before stopping was manifest in the bimanual condition by changes of mu oscillations (9-14 Hz) over the motor cortex. Moreover, mu oscillations before stop signal presentation influenced subsequent stopping success. Altogether, our results favor a single inhibitory mechanism with the net behavioral output depending on the levels of action-specific motor preparation. Response inhibition and motor preparationRaud et. al. 3 Significance statementResponse inhibition is a core function of cognitive flexibility and movement control. Previous research has suggested separate mechanisms for selective and global inhibition, yet the evidence is controversial. Additional research has examined the influence of preparation for action stopping, or what is called proactive control, on stopping performance, yet the neural mechanisms underlying this interaction are unknown. We combined transcranial magnetic stimulation, electroencephalography, electromyography and behavioral measures to compare selective and global inhibition models and to investigate markers of proactive control. The results favor a single inhibitory mechanism over separate selective and global mechanisms, but indicate a vital role for preceding motor activity in determining whether and which actions will be stopped. Response inhibition and motor preparationRaud et. al.

Analysis of the No Return Point Hypothesis: The Effect of Audio and Visual Stimuli in the Fast Movements Inhibition

“…In other words, the groups behave the same, and the parameters affected by these times are the same. This shows that a motor program is active before and after the target time (stop time), (210msec before and 100msec after the target time) (2,16,22). It seems that this motor program is independent of stimulus and task type.…”

“…There has been much research on how to stop movements, each seeking to respond to different dimensions of inhibition and stop movements (21). New test design methods and brain and muscle wave recording devices are standard methods for examining movement stop mechanisms (13,16). However, it should be noted that the use of new and technology-based methods should not take the test conditions out of their normal state.…”

“…Various studies have been conducted in the conformation of the No Return Point hypothesis, which most were in laboratory conditions (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19). Gao and Zelaznik (20) evaluated Henry and Harrison's hypothesis in detail.…”

Restart errors reaction time of a two-step inhibition process account for the violation of the race model’s independence in multi-effector selective stop signal task

“…For example, while driving, most of the time the hand and foot are functionally coupled to simultaneously depress the gas pedal and turn the steering wheel, but sudden events, such as the presence of an unexpected obstacle on the road, may require releasing the gas pedal while continuing to turn the steering wheel, thus stopping one effector while performing an action with the other. In several studies, the above form of selective inhibition has been investigated by employing selective versions of the SST (de Jong et al, 1995;Boucher et al, 2007;Aron and Verbruggen, 2008;Claffey et al, 2010;MacDonald et al, 2012;Xu et al, 2015;Raud et al, 2020;Wadsley et al, 2022). Typically, these tasks require reacting to a Go Signal by the simultaneous movement of two effectors (e.g., pressing a button with the left and right index fingers), and selectively cancel the movement of only one effector when a Stop Signal occurs.…”

Investigating the role of contextual cues and interhemispheric inhibitory mechanisms in response-selective stopping: A TMS study

“…been reported in the literature (from 175 to 225 ms post SS as per Figure6inMacDonald et al, 2014; from 175 to 200 ms post SS as per Figure2BinCowie et al, 2016; at 150 ms post SS as per Figure4AinRaud et al, 2020). Given that MEP amplitude from unconditioned TMS is a summed output of direct and indirect (via intra-, inter-, and sub-cortical inputs) activation of corticospinal neurons(Bestmann & Krakauer, 2015), no specific inferences can be made in regard to the CSE increase in the stopping hand.…”