Distinguishing stimulus and response codes in theta oscillations in prefrontal areas during inhibitory control of automated responses

Abstract

Response inhibition mechanisms are mediated via cortical and subcortical networks. At the cortical level, the superior frontal gyrus, including the supplementary motor area (SMA) and inferior frontal areas, is important. There is an ongoing debate about the functional roles of these structures during response inhibition as it is unclear whether these structures process different codes or contents of information during response inhibition. In the current study, we examined this question with a focus on theta frequency oscillations during response inhibition processes. We used a standard Go/Nogo task in a sample of human participants and combined different EEG signal decomposition methods with EEG beamforming approaches. The results suggest that stimulus coding during inhibitory control is attained by oscillations in the upper theta frequency band (∼7 Hz). In contrast, response selection codes during inhibitory control appear to be attained by the lower theta frequency band (∼4 Hz). Importantly, these different codes seem to be processed in distinct functional neuroanatomical structures. Although the SMA may process stimulus codes and response selection codes, the inferior frontal cortex may selectively process response selection codes during inhibitory control. Taken together, the results suggest that different entities within the functional neuroanatomical network associated with response inhibition mechanisms process different kinds of codes during inhibitory control. These codes seem to be reflected by different oscillations within the theta frequency band. Hum Brain Mapp 38:5681-5690, 2017. © 2017 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

The system‐neurophysiological basis for how methylphenidate modulates perceptual–attentional conflicts during auditory processing

“…Whereas we observed conflict-related modulation of these components, notably these ERP components did not reveal an interaction "placebo/ MPH × conflict/nonconflict × attention side", which is inconsistent with the result found at the behavioral level. These intermingled coding levels have been shown to be separable by applying RIDE Mückschel, Dippel et al, 2017;Wolff et al, 2017). Based on these ERP data, it may seem that conflict monitoring processes were not affected by MPH effects.…”

“…Therefore, only specific subprocesses during the resolution of perceptual-attentional conflicts are modulated by MPH. Although, RIDE was developed to account for intraindividual variability in EEG data (Ouyang et al, 2011;Ouyang et al, 2015a), it can be applied to distinguish coexisting coding levels that occur during conflict monitoring Mückschel, Dippel, & Beste, 2017;Schreiter, Chmielewski, & Beste, 2018;Wolff, Mückschel, & Beste, 2017). Although, RIDE was developed to account for intraindividual variability in EEG data (Ouyang et al, 2011;Ouyang et al, 2015a), it can be applied to distinguish coexisting coding levels that occur during conflict monitoring Mückschel, Dippel, & Beste, 2017;Schreiter, Chmielewski, & Beste, 2018;Wolff, Mückschel, & Beste, 2017).…”

Response selection codes in neurophysiological data predict conjoint effects of controlled and automatic processes during response inhibition

“…This is evident during the “conditional selection” of stimulus features (i.e., stimulus–response (S–R) binding) in the dual‐route logic. The presence of dissociable fractions of “stimulus codes” and “response selection codes” in the N2 ERP component that are processed in overlapping areas of the medial frontal cortex, and that these are differentially modulated by neurobiochemical processes has recently been reported (Mückschel et al, ).…”

“…Rather, “stimulus codes” and “response selection codes” can co‐exist over extended time periods during the inhibition of responses (Mückschel et al, ). This is especially important to consider, when automatic (“unconditional”) responding dominates behavior (Mückschel, Dippel, & Beste, ). Similarly, it has long been argued that the N2 ERP component, a neurophysiological correlate of cognitive control and conflict monitoring (van Veen & Carter, ), reflects a concomitant coding of perceptual processes and of processes controlling for incorrect motor response preparation (Folstein & Van Petten, ).…”

“…Combined with source localization methods, it is then possible to examine the associated functional neuroanatomical network (Mückschel et al, ; Wolff, Mückschel, & Beste, ). The aforementioned stimulus (S)–response (R) translation processes have been suggested to be reflected by the C‐cluster (Bluschke, Chmielewski, Mückschel, Roessner, & Beste, ; Mückschel et al, ; Ouyang et al, ; Verleger, Metzner, Ouyang, Śmigasiewicz, & Zhou, ; Verleger, Siller, Ouyang, & Śmigasiewicz, ; Wolff et al, ), which has also been shown to be modulated during the inhibition of automated responses (Mückschel et al, ) and is assumed to mostly reflect processes that are also assumed to be reflected by the (NoGo)‐P3 (Mückschel et al, ; Verleger et al, ; Wolff et al, ). During inhibitory control the C‐cluster probably reflects a “braking function,” or a mechanism that is important to inhibit automated response tendencies (Mückschel et al, ).…”