Roles of the pre-SMA and rIFG in conditional stopping revealed by transcranial magnetic stimulation

Lee, Hon Wah; Lu, Ming Shan; Chen, Chiao Yun; Muggleton, Neil G.; Hsu, Tian‐Chuan; Juan, Chi Hung

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2015.08.024

Cited by 33 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This observation is broadly consistent with the proposed role of SMFC as a modulatory structure of response tendencies when occasional stopping of a response is required (Forstmann, et al, 2008). In addition, it is consistent with recent evidence, which found that TMS over the SMFC resulted in slower responses for nosignal trials in a stop switching (Neubert, Mars, Buch, Olivier, & Rushworth, 2010) and a conditional stopping paradigm (Lee, et al, 2016) relative to trials with sham TMS.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Transcranial direct current stimulation of superior medial frontal cortex disrupts response selection during proactive response inhibition

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive control is a vital executive process that is involved in selecting, generating, and maintaining appropriate, goal-directed behaviour. One operation that draws heavily on this resource is the mapping of sensory information to appropriate motor responses (i.e., response selection). Recently, a transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) study demonstrated that the left posterior lateral prefrontal cortex (pLPFC) is casually involved in response selection and response selection training. Correlational brain imaging evidence has also implicated the superior medial frontal cortex (SMFC) in response selection, and there is causal evidence that this brain region is involved in the proactive modulation of response tendencies when occasional stopping is required (response inhibition). However, to date there is only limited causal evidence that implicates the SMFC in response selection. Here, we investigated the role of SMFC in response selection, response selection training (Experiment 1) and response selection when occasional response inhibition is anticipated (Experiments 2 and 3) by employing anodal, cathodal, and sham tDCS. Cathodal stimulation of the SMFC modulated response selection by increasing reaction times in the context of proactive response inhibition. Our results suggest a context dependent role of the SMFC in response selection and hint that task set can influence the interaction between the brain and behaviour.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Transcranial direct current stimulation of superior medial frontal cortex disrupts response selection during proactive response inhibition

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This observation is broadly consistent with the proposed role of SMFC as a modulatory structure of response tendencies when occasional stopping of a response is required (Forstmann et al, 2008). In addition, it is consistent with recent evidence, which found that TMS over the SMFC resulted in slower responses for no-signal trials in a stop switching (Neubert, Mars, Buch, Olivier, & Rushworth, 2010) and a conditional stopping paradigm (Lee et al, 2016) relative to trials with sham TMS.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Selecting and inhibiting responses: Common cognitive and neural substrates?

Bender¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the brain receiving a constant influx of sensory information in ever-changing environments, humans are nonetheless able to flexibly guide their behaviour in accordance with higher goals and plans. The cognitive system achieves this by implementing executive control processes that monitor, regulate and alter the settings of lower level cognitive processes that are involved in analyzing incoming sensory information and executing motor plans. At the core of goal-directed behaviour are the abilities to select appropriate responses and inhibit planned actions in response to changes in the environment or internal states. While there have been considerable advancements made in understanding the behavioural and neural substrates of response selection and response inhibition, we currently know relatively little about the relationship and possible interplay between these two key cognitive operations. The experiments in this thesis investigate the behavioural and neural overlap in response selection and response inhibition processes by identifying the latent structure that underpins performance in a wide range of action control tasks, exploring the causal role of a brain region that has been implicated in both processes, and by inspecting the degree to which response selection training transfers to other response selection and inhibitory control tasks.Study 1 describes a behavioural study that employed an individual differences approach to investigate the underlying relationships across a battery of common response selection tasks (as measured by the psychological refractory period paradigm (PRP), single response selection task, and attentional blink (AB) task), and response inhibition tasks (as measured by the stop-signal task (SST), Go-Nogo tasks, Stroop, and Flanker task). In order to avoid task impurity and construct validity problems that can seriously undermine the utility of correlational and exploratory factor analytic studies, I used confirmatory factor analysis to statistically extract only what is common about the tasks.Using this approach, I found that response inhibition and response selection were separable, with SST and Go-Nogo task performance related to response inhibition, and the PRP, Stroop, Single Response Selection, and AB tasks related to response selection.These findings suggest that response selection and response inhibition reflect two distinct cognitive operations.As neurocognitive work has implicated the superior medial frontal cortex (SMFC) in both response selection and the proactive modulation of response tendencies when stopping is occasionally required (inhibitory response selection control), it suggests that the neural substrates for these two cognitive operations overlap in this brain region. In Response selection performance is typically compromised due to the processing limitations associated with cognitive control and decision-making when completing two tasks together relative to when completing the component tasks in isolation. While these multitasking performance decr...

show abstract

“…Other studies used cTBS over the pre-SMA and found no significant change in SSRTs [17,18]. Verbruggen et al [17] used a figure-of-eight coil and the stimulation applied was based on hand motor thresholds.…”

Section: Motor Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies (see Table 1 for a summary) using the stop signal task in healthy participants have shown that repetitive TMS (rTMS) over the IFG [14][15][16][17] impairs motor inhibition, but others reported no effects [18]. Alternatively, bilateral tDCS over the IFG affected proactive control of behaviour [19] but produced no changes in reactive inhibition [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theta burst magnetic stimulation over the pre-supplementary motor area improves motor inhibition

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Roles of the pre-SMA and rIFG in conditional stopping revealed by transcranial magnetic stimulation

Cited by 33 publications

References 44 publications

Transcranial direct current stimulation of superior medial frontal cortex disrupts response selection during proactive response inhibition

Transcranial direct current stimulation of superior medial frontal cortex disrupts response selection during proactive response inhibition

Selecting and inhibiting responses: Common cognitive and neural substrates?

Theta burst magnetic stimulation over the pre-supplementary motor area improves motor inhibition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About