Non-selective response inhibition in equiprobable Go/NoGo task: Bayesian analysis of fMRI data

Abstract

The response inhibition is a crucial mechanism of goal-directed behavior, which is conventionally considered as a selective mechanism triggered by particular "inhibitory" stimuli or events. Based on recent research, the alternative model of non-selective response inhibition was proposed by several authors. Accordingly, response inhibition mechanism may nonselectively inhibit all potential response options to execute an appropriate one, and such inhibition may be triggered not only by the presentation of "inhibitory" stimuli but also by the occurrence of any imperative stimuli instructing on the necessity to suppress or implement a prepared action. In previous research, the support towards this notion was mainly based on an absence of significant changes in the BOLD signal or amplitude of event-related potentials related between Go-and NoGo-stimuli when both of them were presented equiprobably. All previous studies in this research domain utilized statistical methods based on frequentist inference that makes impossible the acceptation of the null hypothesis. Therefore, the current research was aimed to reveal direct proof of the similarity of neuronal activity level between Goand NoGo-trials in the brain areas associated with response inhibition utilizing Bayesian analysis of fMRI data. Twenty healthy, right-handed volunteer subjects (16 women), aged (mean ± SD):23.9 ± 4.6, participated in the present fMRI performing paired stimulus modification of the Go/NoGo with an equiprobable presentation of GO and NoGo stimuli. To reveal brain areas demonstrating similar levels in the BOLD signal for both Go and NoGo trials Bayesian grouplevel analysis was combined with a meta-analysis of fMRI studies using equal probability Go/NoGo tasks comparable to the present study. As a result, we observed the overlap between brain areas previously associated with response inhibition and brain areas demonstrating practical equivalence of neuronal activity located in the right DLPFC, IPL, PMC, and left IFG (AIFO). Therefore obtained results favor the existence of non-selective response inhibition, which can act as a non-selective mechanism of action restraint in the settings of context uncertainty, is modeled by the equal probability of Go and NoGo-trials.Key words: non-selective response inhibition, functional MRI, Bayesian inference, accepting the null hypothesis, practical equivalence, Go/NoGo task Highlights• Non-selective response inhibition hypothesis was assessed by Go/NoGo task • Bayesian analysis of fMRI data was combined with a meta-analysis of fMRI studies• Nodes of response-inhibition system were equally involved in Go-and NoGo-trials• Evidence for non-selective response inhibition in uncertainty context was found

Altered brain activity related to inhibitory processing in youth with insomnia

“…Participants were also instructed to refrain from responding to both the Go target (Ignore-Go) and the NoGo target (Ignore-NoGo) at the ignored location. The type of the cues, and the location and type of the targets were all varied randomly with 50% probability, which has been suggested to eliminate bias towards Go stimuli and minimize the confounding 'oddball effect' associated with a low frequency of the NoGo stimuli (Masharipov, Kireev, Korotkov, & Medvedev, 2019). The inter-trial interval was set to be 2300 ms. For Attend-Go targets, participants were instructed to respond as soon as possible, and only responses made within 1000 ms after the target offset were included as valid trials.…”

Video game addiction is associated with early stage of inhibitory control problems: An event‐related potential study using cued Go/NoGo task

“…The main difference is that in cue Go/NoGo, participants are presented with a cue that indicates whether they should respond or not respond to a subsequent stimulus, while in conventional Go/NoGo, participants are only presented with the stimulus and must decide whether to respond or not respond without any cue. Moreover, in contrast to the conventional Go/NoGo task, the cue task contains equal probability of Go and NoGo trials that are presented after preparatory cue stimuli that create an uncertain context in which the inhibition is nonselective 16 . Moreover, a defined cue indicates whether the subsequent stimulus may need a response or not 15,17,18 .…”

“…Moreover, in contrast to the conventional Go/NoGo task, the cue task contains equal probability of Go and NoGo trials that are presented after preparatory cue stimuli that create an uncertain context in which the inhibition is nonselective. 16 Moreover, a defined cue indicates whether the subsequent stimulus may need a response or not. 15 , 17 , 18 This evokes top‐down response preparation processes, facilitating speeded reactions.…”