Preparation to Inhibit a Response Complements Response Inhibition during Performance of a Stop-Signal Task

Abstract

Inhibition of inappropriate responses is an essential executive function needed for adaptation to changing environments. In stop-signal tasks, which are often used to investigate response inhibition, subjects make "go" responses while they prepare to stop at a suddenly given "stop" signal. However, the preparatory processes ongoing before response inhibition have rarely been investigated, and it remains unclear how the preparation contributes to response inhibition. In the present study, a stop-signal task was designed so that the extent of the preparation could be estimated using behavioral and neuroimaging measures. Specifically, in addition to the conventional go trials where preparation to stop was required ("uncertain-go" trials), another type of go trial was introduced where a stop-signal was never given and such preparation was unnecessary ("certain-go" trials). An index reflecting the "preparation cost" was then calculated by subtracting the reaction times in the certain-go trials from those in the uncertain-go trials. It was revealed that the stop signal reaction time, a common index used to evaluate the efficiency of response inhibition, decreased as the preparation cost increased, indicating greater preparation supports more efficient inhibition. In addition, imaging data showed that response inhibition recruited frontoparietal regions (the contrast "stop vs uncertain-go") and that preparation recruited most of the inhibition-related frontoparietal regions (the contrast "uncertain-go vs certain-go"). It was also revealed that the inhibition-related activity declined as the preparation cost increased. These behavioral and imaging results suggest preparation makes a complementary contribution to response inhibition during performance of a stop-signal task.

On the ability to inhibit thought and action: General and special theories of an act of control.

“…2011; Logan, 1981;Logan & Burkell, 1986;Ramautar et al, 2004) and when subjects are given signals that indicate that stop signals are likely (Chikazoe et al, 2009;Verbruggen & Logan, 2009c). This strategic slowing may be severe enough to subvert the experiment (Leotti & Wager, 2010), invalidating estimates of SSRT (Verbruggen et al, 2013).…”

Methylphenidate Effects on Brain Activity as a Function of SLC6A3 Genotype and Striatal Dopamine Transporter Availability

“…We focused on the first-level contrast correct no-go vs correct odd as indicator of successful inhibition without the confounding influences of attentional capture (Chikazoe et al, 2009b;Criaud and Boulinguez, 2013). For comparability purposes, we also calculated the following first-level contrasts: (i) correct no-go4baseline, (ii) incorrect nogo4baseline, (iii) correct odd4baseline, and (iv) correct no-go4incorrect no-go.…”

Subthalamic nucleus activity dissociates proactive and reactive inhibition in patients with Parkinson's disease

“…Current models of action suppression distinguish between reactive stopping, when subjects are required to inhibit an action in response to infrequent stimuli (Aron and Poldrack, 2006;Li et al, 2008) and proactive stopping, when subjects stand ready to inhibit forthcoming actions when necessary (Ballanger et al, 2009;Chikazoe et al, 2009). Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have identified a prefrontal-subcortical network supporting both types of executive control processes, and established within this network the important involvement of the subthalamic nucleus (STN, Aron and Poldrack, 2006;Ballanger et al, 2009;Chikazoe et al, 2009).…”

“…e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / y n i m g Chikazoe et al, 2009;Frank et al, 2007;Jahfari et al, 2010;van Maanen et al, 2011).…”