Functional and effective connectivity of stopping

Huster, René J.; Plis, Sergey M.; Lavallee, Christina F.; Calhoun, Vince D.; Herrmann, Christoph S.

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.02.034

Cited by 28 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The focus on the N2 and P3 in the response inhibition literature may stem from the fact that these components are relatively large in amplitude and thus tend to dominate over other EEG markers of different stages of cognitive processing. Indeed, studies that attempt to de-mix the various sources of EEG activity report a much richer set of activations, particularly in early time-windows just after the presentation of the inhibitory signal (Albares et al, 2014;Huster et al, 2017Huster et al, , 2014. Additionally, recent studies highlight the importance of other ongoing processes for successful inhibition, such as an attentional bias towards fast stimulus detection (Langford et al, 2016a(Langford et al, , 2016bSkippen et al, 2019) or motor preparation processes (Liebrand et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in unity: the go/no-go and stop signal tasks rely on different inhibitory mechanisms

Raud

Westerhausen

Dooley

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response inhibition refers to the suppression of prepared or initiated actions. Typically, the go/nogo task (GNGT) or the stop signal task (SST) are used interchangeably to capture individual differences in response inhibition. Yet, there is some controversy if these tasks assess similar inhibitory processes. We extracted the time-courses of sensory, motor, attentional, and cognitive control networks by group independent component (G-ICA) analysis of electroencephalography (EEG) data from both tasks. Additionally, electromyography (EMG) from the responding effector muscles was recorded to detect the timing of response inhibition. The results indicated that inhibitory performance in the GNGT may be comparable to response selection mechanisms, reaching peripheral muscles at around 316 ms. In contrast, inhibitory performance in the SST is achieved via biasing of the sensory-motor system in preparation for stopping, followed by fast sensory, motor and frontal integration during outright stopping. Inhibition can be detected at the peripheral level at 140 ms after stop stimulus presentation. The GNGT and the SST therefore seem to recruit widely different neural dynamics, implying that the interchangeable use of superficially similar inhibition tasks in both basic and clinical research is unwarranted.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in unity: the go/no-go and stop signal tasks rely on different inhibitory mechanisms

Raud

Westerhausen

Dooley

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…MEG and EEG are well tolerated by patients with bvFTD and are sensitive to the impact of bvFTD on local brain function and cortical networks (Hughes et al , 2011, 2013; Hughes and Rowe, 2013). Electrophysiological studies have consistently identified two main components in the event-related potential (ERP) that index successful inhibition: the NoGo-N2 (Falkenstein et al , 2002; Nieuwenhuis et al , 2003; Falkenstein, 2006; Huster et al , 2013, 2014; Smith et al , 2013) and the NoGo-P3 (Band and van Boxtel, 1999; Roche et al , 2005; Smith et al , 2008, 2013; Enriquez-Geppert et al , 2010). While EEG represents spatial summation of conducted neural activity, and is well suited to identifying the time course of significant components, MEG has the potential advantage in localizing cortical sources.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving response inhibition systems in frontotemporal dementia with citalopram

Hughes

Rittman

Regenthal

et al. 2015

Brain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disinhibition is a cardinal feature of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, arising from both frontal atrophy and serotonin depletion. Hughes et al. show that neurophysiological signatures of inhibition are reduced in frontotemporal dementia, and that citalopram rescues prefrontal neurophysiological deficits relative to placebo. Boosting serotoninergic transmission may facilitate management of disinhibition.

show abstract

“…Contrary to the stop-N2, the amplitude of the stop-P3 is usually higher in SS than in US trials (Dimoska et al, 2006). The onset of this component is highly correlated with the RT of stopping, so it is a good indicator of response inhibition (Wessel & Aron, 2015), although it seems to be dependent on earlier processes of inhibition (Huster, Plis, Lavallee, Calhoun, & Herrmann, 2014). Several neural sources, such as the mid-cingulate cortex and the inferior frontal cortex, appear to be involved in generating the stop-P3 wave (e.g., Huster, Westerhausen, Pantev, & Konrad, 2010;Rubia, Smith, Taylor, & Brammer, 2007;Schall, Stuphorn, & Brown, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

When the brain simulates stopping: Neural activity recorded during real and imagined stop-signal tasks

González-Villar

Bonilla

Carrillo-de-la-Peña

2016

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been suggested that mental rehearsal activates brain areas similar to those activated by real performance. Although inhibition is a key function of human behavior, there are no previous reports of brain activity during imagined response cancellation. We analyzed event-related potentials (ERPs) and time-frequency data associated with motor execution and inhibition during real and imagined performance of a stop-signal task. The ERPs characteristic of stop trials-that is, the stop-N2 and stop-P3-were also observed during covert performance of the task. Imagined stop (IS) trials yielded smaller stop-N2 amplitudes than did successful stop (SS) and unsuccessful stop (US) trials, but midfrontal theta power similar to that in SS trials. The stop-P3 amplitude for IS was intermediate between those observed for SS and US. The results may be explained by the absence of error-processing and correction processes during imagined performance. For go trials, real execution was associated with higher mu and beta desynchronization over motor areas, which confirms previous reports of lower motor activation during imagined execution and also with larger P3b amplitudes, probably indicating increased top-down attention to the real task. The similar patterns of activity observed for imagined and real performance suggest that imagination tasks may be useful for training inhibitory processes. Nevertheless, brain activation was generally weaker during mental rehearsal, probably as a result of the reduced engagement of top-down mechanisms and limited error processing.

show abstract

Functional and effective connectivity of stopping

Cited by 28 publications

References 39 publications

Differences in unity: the go/no-go and stop signal tasks rely on different inhibitory mechanisms

Differences in unity: the go/no-go and stop signal tasks rely on different inhibitory mechanisms

Improving response inhibition systems in frontotemporal dementia with citalopram

When the brain simulates stopping: Neural activity recorded during real and imagined stop-signal tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About