Successful and unsuccessful response inhibitions differentially affect the effective connectivity between insular, presupplementary-motor, and striatal areas.

Abstract

Successful response inhibition depends upon the delay between the cues that signal a response and its subsequent inhibition. Previous studies report activity in the right presupplementary motor area (rPreSMA), right anterior insula (rAI), and the right striatum (rSTR) when subjects attempt to inhibit responses. Although these regions are anatomically connected, how they interact during successful and unsuccessful inhibitions has not been studied. In this work, we used a temporal prediction task, functional MRI, and dynamic causal modeling to solve this question. We found selective direct activation of both the rPreSMA and the rAI during successful and unsuccessful inhibitions which also were associated with opposite modulatory effects on insular-striatal and presupplementary-motor striatal descending connections. Moreover, inputs to the rPreSMA during successful inhibitions were propagated to the rAI whereas inputs to the rAI during unsuccessful inhibitions were propagated to the rPreSMA. We interpret that the direct perturbation in the rPreSMA and the modulation of the rPreSMA → rSTR connections would facilitate response inhibition whereas weak insular activity would cause response inhibition to fail despite the existence of strong rAI → rSTR modulations. We discuss that descending connections could be nonlinearly modulated via activity of either the right inferior frontal gyrus or the left anterior cingulate cortex. From a predictive coding perspective, rAI activity during successful and unsuccessful inhibition would signal interoceptive information when subjects unexpectedly need to change behaviors. (PsycINFO Database Record

Knowing when to stop: Aberrant precision and evidence accumulation in schizophrenia

“…The increased precision at higher hierarchical levels may be reflected in higher postsynaptic gain and activations in the right insula — and an accompanying decreased sensitivity to ascending PEs. This formulation is consistent with weak connections between sensory areas and the insula ( Limongi and Pérez, 2017 , Limongi et al, 2016 , Limongi et al, 2015 ).…”

“…For example, their experience of responding prematurely leads them to believe that a loss will occur (in this sort of experimental setting, prior beliefs are usually induced by task instructions). This results in a large temporal estimation error (TEE); namely, RT minus collision time ( Limongi and Pérez, 2017 ). It follows, that if aberrant precision control in SZ leads to a compensatory increase in the precision of prior beliefs, we should find a similar effect (i.e., large absolute TEEs or short RTs), even when visual motion information is available.…”

A Systematic Review of Obesity and Binge Eating Associated Impairment of the Cognitive Inhibition System

“…Situated in the superior part of the frontal cortex, Brodmann area (BA) 6 is located on the posterior part of the premotor cortex and corresponds to the supplementary motor area, also described as secondary motor cortex. Several behavioral tasks, such as the go/no-go and stop-signal task, emphasize its importance for response inhibition ( 85 , 91 , 92 ). In individuals with substance addiction, decreased activation of the supplementary motor area has been observed during those two inhibition tasks ( 93 , 94 ).…”

Altered Functional Interactions of Inhibition Regions in Cognitively Normal Parkinson’s Disease

“…Thus, the failure of DCM to characterize network interactions in PD may partly relate to large individual differences in cause-effect interactions within a defined brain network ( Rae et al, 2016 ), which cannot be modeled using the gPPI method. Nonetheless, leveraging both approaches may promote a better understanding of the functional architecture of the inhibition network, especially in disease states where reorganization of function can involve interactions amongst regions that are not found in healthy participants ( Harrington et al, 2017 ), and better characterize the nature of regional interactions within large-scale networks and their modulation by behavioral contexts ( Limongi and Perez, 2017 ).…”

“…Response inhibition is thought to involve a right-hemisphere biased frontal-striatal-subthalamic network ( Jahanshahi et al, 2015b ). However, the specific regions of the network and whether regions play a direct or supportive role in inhibition remain debated ( Aron, 2007 ; Chamberlain et al, 2009 ; Hampshire, 2015 ; Hampshire and Sharp, 2015 ; Limongi and Perez, 2017 ; Bartoli et al, 2018 ; Hung et al, 2018 ). For this reason, we focused on regions commonly implicated in response inhibition ( Aron, 2007 ; Hampshire and Sharp, 2015 ; Hung et al, 2018 ), regardless of their purported roles, as altered functioning in any of these regions could adversely affect inhibitory control in PD.…”