Training-induced behavioral and brain plasticity in inhibitory control

Abstract

Deficits in inhibitory control, the ability to suppress ongoing or planned motor or cognitive processes, contribute to many psychiatric and neurological disorders. The rehabilitation of inhibition-related disorders may therefore benefit from neuroplasticity-based training protocols aiming at normalizing inhibitory control proficiency and the underlying brain networks. Current literature on training-induced behavioral and brain plasticity in inhibitory control suggests that improvements may follow either from the development of automatic forms of inhibition or from the strengthening of top-down, controlled inhibition. Automatic inhibition develops in conditions of consistent and repeated associations between inhibition-triggering stimuli and stopping goals. Once established, the stop signals directly elicit inhibition, thereby bypassing slow, top-down executive control and accelerating stopping processes. In contrast, training regimens involving varying stimulus-response associations or frequent inhibition failures prevent the development of automatic inhibition and thus strengthen top-down inhibitory processes rather than bottom-up ones. We discuss these findings in terms of developing optimal inhibitory control training regimens for rehabilitation purposes.

Enhancing frontal top-down inhibitory control with Go/NoGo training

“…Our finding for training-induced decrease in response times (RTs) to Go trials with no change in inhibition trials accuracy replicates the patterns of IC behavioral improvements found in previous studies on Go/NoGo training (Benikos et al 2013;Chavan et al 2015; though see Manuel et al (2010) or Enge et al (2014) for partial speed-accuracy trade-offs and Spierer et al (2013) for a review).…”

“…The controlled engagement of frontal inhibitory areas is then bypassed and inhibition speeded up (Manuel et al 2010;Spierer et al 2013). In such training conditions, IC becomes directly triggered by the Stop stimuli via the brain areas implementing stimulus-response (S-R) mapping rules (e.g., parietal cortices 100 ms after the onset of NoGo stimuli in Manuel et al 2010).…”

“…Second, inhibitory control performance improvement can be achieved via the enhancement of controlled topdown inhibition processes Chavan et al 2015): when the task used to train IC is designed to prevent automatic inhibition to develop, i.e., with varying S-R mapping rules, controlled fronto-basal IC neurocognitive mechanisms are repeatedly solicited during the training and thus ultimately enhanced Spierer et al 2013;Chavan et al 2015). Neurophysiologically, such optimizations of frontal inhibition processes have been shown to manifest as decreases in the activity of right inferior frontal cortices around 200 ms to 300 ms after the onset of stop stimuli (Benikos et al 2013).…”

On the automaticity of response inhibition in individuals with alcoholism

“…However, recent work suggests that response inhibition can become 'automatic', triggered by the retrieval of previously acquired associations between stimuli and stopping (Spierer, Chavan, & Manuel, 2013;Verbruggen, Best, Bowditch, Stevens, & McLaren, 2014;Verbruggen & Logan, 2008a). In the present study, we examined whether automatic response inhibition is also impaired in individuals with alcoholism.…”

Without Blinking an Eye: Proactive Motor Control Enhancement

“…For example, in an ADHD sample, pharmacological interventions such as methylphenidate improved SST performances (Devito et al 2009). Cognitive training presented mixed results (Koster et al 2017;Maraver et al 2016;Spierer et al 2013). Noninvasive brain stimulation proved to be a useful tool in improving inhibition-based performances (Jacobson et al 2011;Kwon and Kwon 2013).…”