Meaningful inhibition: Exploring the role of meaning and modality in response inhibition

Abstract

We frequently guide our decisions about when and how to act based on the meanings of perceptual inputs: we might avoid treading on a flower, but not on a leaf. However, most research on response inhibition has used simple perceptual stimuli devoid of meaning. In two Go/No-Go experiments, we examined whether the neural mechanisms supporting response inhibition are influenced by the relevance of meaning to the decision, and by presentation modality (whether concepts were presented as words or images). In an on-line fMRI experiment, we found common regions for response inhibition across perceptual and conceptual decisions. These included the bilateral intraparietal sulcus and the right inferior frontal sulcus, whose neural responses have been linked to diverse cognitive demands in previous studies. In addition, we identified a cluster in ventral lateral occipital cortex that was sensitive to the modality of input, with a stronger response to No-Go than Go trials for meaningful images, compared to words with the same semantic content. In a second experiment, using resting-state fMRI, we explored how individual variation in the intrinsic connectivity of these activated regions related to variation in behavioural performance. Participants who showed stronger connectivity between common inhibition regions and limbic areas in medial temporal and subgenual anterior cingulate cortex were better at inhibition when this was driven by the meaning of the items. In addition, regions with a specific role in picture inhibition were more connected to a cluster in the thalamus/caudate for participants who were better at performing the picture task outside of the scanner. Together these studies indicate that the capacity to appropriately withhold action depends on interactions between common control regions, which are important across multiple types of input and decision, and other brain regions linked to specific inputs (i.e., visual features) or representations (e.g., memory).

The neural correlates of inhibitory control in 10-month-old infants: a functional near-infrared spectroscopy study

“…This evidence is consistent with existing fMRI and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) research showing that regions of the PFC and parietal lobe are activated during tasks of inhibitory control in both adults and children (Bunge et al, 2002;Cope et al, 2020;Durston et al, 2002Durston et al, , 2006Tamm et al, 2002;van Belle et al, 2014). Specifically, the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC; Casey et al, 1997;Cope et al, 2020;Durston et al, 2006), the right inferior frontal cortex (as part of a fronto-basal-ganglia network; Aron et al, 2004Aron et al, , 2014Bari & Robbins, 2013;Chambers et al, 2009;Chikazoe, 2010), and regions within the right parietal cortex (Bunge et al, 2002;Chikazoe et al, 2009;Cope et al, 2020;Durston et al, 2002;Gonzalez Alam et al, 2018;Mehnert et al, 2013;Osada et al, 2019) are reliably found to be active in tasks requiring response inhibition. Some studies have also found activation in the bilateral orbito-frontal when response inhibition is needed (Casey et al, 1997;Cope et al, 2020;Rubia et al, 2006;Tamm et al, 2002).…”

Both default and multiple-demand regions represent semantic goal information

“…Consequently, it has been proposed that visual responses in lateral occipital cortex are largely context and task invariant (Bracci et al, 2017;Bugatus et al, 2017;Xu, 2018aXu, , 2018b. However, lateral occipital cortex is also commonly-activated across multiple control-demanding tasks, and by this definition, forms part of the MDN (Waskom et al, 2014;Gonzalez Alam et al, 2018;Hebart et al, 2018). Behavioural goals directly impact object representations in this region (Harel et al, 2014).…”

Distinct and Common Neural Coding of Semantic and Non-semantic Control Demands

“…However, there also appear to be anatomical differences between these networks: regions supporting semantic control extend into more anterior areas of left inferior frontal gyrus, and posterior middle temporal areas, which are not implicated in executive control more generally. Moreover, SCN shows strong left-lateralisation, in contrast to other aspects of control, which are bilateral or even right-lateralized (Gonzalez Alam et al 2018; Gonzalez Alam et al 2019; Jefferies et al 2020).…”