Data‐driven analysis of simultaneous EEG/fMRI reveals neurophysiological phenotypes of impulse control

Abstract

Response inhibition is the ability to suppress inadequate but prepotent or ongoing response tendencies. A fronto-striatal network is involved in these processes. Between-subject differences in the intra-individual variability have been suggested to constitute a key to pathological processes underlying impulse control disorders. Single-trial EEG/fMRI analysis allows to increase sensitivity for inter-individual differences by incorporating intra-individual variability. Thirty-eight healthy subjects performed a visual Go/Nogo task during simultaneous EEG/fMRI. Of 38 healthy subjects, 21 subjects reliably showed Nogo-related ICs (Nogo-IC-positive) while 17 subjects (Nogo-IC-negative) did not. Comparing both groups revealed differences on various levels: On trait level, Nogo-IC-negative subjects scored higher on questionnaires regarding attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder; on a behavioral level, they displayed slower response times (RT) and higher intra-individual RT variability while both groups did not differ in their inhibitory performance. On the neurophysiological level, Nogo-IC-negative subjects showed a hyperactivation of left inferior frontal cortex/insula and left putamen as well as significantly reduced P3 amplitudes. Thus, a data-driven approach for IC classification and the resulting presence or absence of early Nogo-specific ICs as criterion for group selection revealed group differences at behavioral and neurophysiological levels. This may indicate electrophysiological phenotypes characterized by inter-individual variations of neural and behavioral correlates of impulse control. We demonstrated that the inter-individual difference in an electrophysiological correlate of response inhibition is correlated with distinct, potentially compensatory neural activity. This may suggest the existence of electrophysiologically dissociable phenotypes of behavioral and neural motor response inhibition with the Nogo-IC-positive phenotype possibly providing protection against impulsivity-related dysfunction. Hum Brain Mapp 37:3114-3136, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

On the relevance of EEG resting theta activity for the neurophysiological dynamics underlying motor inhibitory control

“…As with other aspects of cognitive control, there are strong interindividual differences in the increase of theta frequency band power in Nogo trials (Moore, Mills, Marshman, & Corr, 2012;Müller et al, 2017;Schmüser et al, 2016;Vahid et al, 2018). As with other aspects of cognitive control, there are strong interindividual differences in the increase of theta frequency band power in Nogo trials (Moore, Mills, Marshman, & Corr, 2012;Müller et al, 2017;Schmüser et al, 2016;Vahid et al, 2018).…”

“…The degree of this increase seems to be related to the need to inhibit a prepotent response in Nogo trials . As with other aspects of cognitive control, there are strong interindividual differences in the increase of theta frequency band power in Nogo trials (Moore, Mills, Marshman, & Corr, 2012;Müller et al, 2017;Schmüser et al, 2016;Vahid et al, 2018). Recent analyses using machinelearning approaches show that particularly inhibitory control-related theta frequency band activity predicts response inhibition performance well (Vahid et al, 2018).…”

Impact of early childhood malnutrition on the adult brain function: an ERP study

“…For each participant, a semi-automatic peak detection for the N2 and P3 ERP components was first performed on Correct No-Go and Correct Go trials individually on Fz, Cz and FCz electrodes, where the components have previously been reported (Donkers and van Boxtel, 2004;Falkenstein et al, 1999). N2 was defined as the largest fronto-central negative polarity deflection between 200 and 450ms and P3 was defined as the largest fronto-central positive polarity deflection between 350 and 600ms (Grane et al, 2016;McLoughlin et al, 2010;Schmüser et al, 2016;Woltering et al, 2013). The peaks were reviewed by a trained Ph.D. candidate (K.R.)…”

“…In a Go-No-Go task, two ERPs components are typically studied, namely the N2 and P3 components. N2 is defined as the largest fronto-central negative polarity deflection between 200 and 450ms and P3 is defined as the largest fronto-central positive polarity deflection between 350 and 600ms (Grane et al, 2016;McLoughlin et al, 2010;Schmüser et al, 2016;Woltering et al, 2013). N2 and P3 are respectively associated with conflict monitoring (i.e.…”

“…cancellation of a planned or prepotent response) processes in an inhibition control task such as Go-No-Go, Stop signal, Stroop or Flanker task Smith et al, 2008). Those components have been widely studied, notably in samples with ADHD (Grane et al, 2016;Johnstone et al, 2013;McLoughlin et al, 2010;Schmüser et al, 2016;Woltering et al, 2013) and are thought to be altered in individuals with attention and executive deficits. In the current study, we hypothesised that the PEM group will show smaller N2 and P3 component amplitudes compared to the healthy control group.…”