scholarly journals Cross-task contributions of fronto-basal ganglia circuitry in response inhibition and conflict-induced slowing

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Jahfari ◽  
K Richard Ridderinkhof ◽  
Anne GE Collins ◽  
Tomas Knapen ◽  
Lourens J Waldorp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reinforcement Learning ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Information Uncertainty ◽  
Information Sampling ◽  
Reinforcement Learning Model

ABSTRACTWhy are we so slow in choosing the lesser of two evils? We considered whether such slowing relates to uncertainty about the value of these options, which arises from the tendency to avoid them during learning, and whether such slowing relates to fronto-subthalamic inhibitory control mechanisms. 49 participants performed a reinforcement-learning task and a stop-signal task while fMRI was recorded. A reinforcement-learning model was used to quantify learning strategies. Individual differences in lose-lose slowing related to information uncertainty due to sampling, and independently, to less efficient response inhibition in the stop-signal task. Neuroimaging analysis revealed an analogous dissociation: subthalamic nucleus (STN) BOLD activity related to variability in stopping latencies, whereas weaker fronto-subthalamic connectivity related to slowing and information sampling. Across tasks, fast inhibitors increased STN activity for successfully cancelled responses in the stop task, but decreased activity for lose-lose choices. These data support the notion that fronto-STN communication implements a rapid but transient brake on response execution, and that slowing due to decision uncertainty could result from an inefficient release of this “hold your horses” mechanism.

Model-Based and Model-Free Social Cognition

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leor M Hackel ◽  
Jeffrey Jordan Berg ◽  
Björn Lindström ◽  
David Amodio
Keyword(s):  
Reinforcement Learning ◽  
Social Cognition ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Memory Systems ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Financial Advisors ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Model Free ◽  
Systems Model ◽  
Task Assessment

Do habits play a role in our social impressions? To investigate the contribution of habits to the formation of social attitudes, we examined the roles of model-free and model-based reinforcement learning in social interactions—computations linked in past work to habit and planning, respectively. Participants in this study learned about novel individuals in a sequential reinforcement learning paradigm, choosing financial advisors who led them to high- or low-paying stocks. Results indicated that participants relied on both model-based and model-free learning, such that each independently predicted choice during the learning task and self-reported liking in a post-task assessment. Specifically, participants liked advisors who could provide large future rewards as well as advisors who had provided them with large rewards in the past. Moreover, participants varied in their use of model-based and model-free learning strategies, and this individual difference influenced the way in which learning related to self-reported attitudes: among participants who relied more on model-free learning, model-free social learning related more to post-task attitudes. We discuss implications for attitudes, trait impressions, and social behavior, as well as the role of habits in a memory systems model of social cognition.

scholarly journals Cortical silent period reflects individual differences in action stopping performance

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Paci ◽  
Giulio Di Cosmo ◽  
Mauro Gianni Perrucci ◽  
Francesca Ferri ◽  
Marcello Costantini
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Primary Motor Cortex ◽  
Silent Period ◽  
Intracortical Inhibition ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Behavioral Differences ◽  
Cortical Silent Period ◽  
Stop Signal Reaction Time

AbstractInhibitory control is the ability to suppress inappropriate movements and unwanted actions, allowing to regulate impulses and responses. This ability can be measured via the Stop Signal Task, which provides a temporal index of response inhibition, namely the stop signal reaction time (SSRT). At the neural level, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) allows to investigate motor inhibition within the primary motor cortex (M1), such as the cortical silent period (CSP) which is an index of GABAB-mediated intracortical inhibition within M1. Although there is strong evidence that intracortical inhibition varies during action stopping, it is still not clear whether differences in the neurophysiological markers of intracortical inhibition contribute to behavioral differences in actual inhibitory capacities. Hence, here we explored the relationship between intracortical inhibition within M1 and behavioral response inhibition. GABABergic-mediated inhibition in M1 was determined by the duration of CSP, while behavioral inhibition was assessed by the SSRT. We found a significant positive correlation between CSP’s duration and SSRT, namely that individuals with greater levels of GABABergic-mediated inhibition seem to perform overall worse in inhibiting behavioral responses. These results support the assumption that individual differences in intracortical inhibition are mirrored by individual differences in action stopping abilities.

scholarly journals Response inhibition on the stop signal task improves during cardiac contraction

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte L. Rae ◽  
Vanessa E. Botan ◽  
Cassandra D. Gould van Praag ◽  
Aleksandra M. Herman ◽  
Jasmina A. K. Nyyssönen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Cardiac Contraction ◽  
Stop Signal Task

scholarly journals S76. PROACTIVE AND REACTIVE RESPONSE INHIBITION IN INDIVIDUAL WITH SCHIZOTYPY: AN ERP STUDY

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S63-S63
Author(s):  
Ya Wang ◽  
Lu-xia Jia ◽  
Xiao-jing Qin ◽  
Jun-yan Ye ◽  
Raymond Chan
Keyword(s):  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Proactive Inhibition ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Neural Mechanisms ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Reactive Inhibition ◽  
Reactive Control ◽  
Present Event

Abstract Background Schizotypy, a subclinical group at risk for schizophrenia, have been found to show impairments in response inhibition. Recent studies differentiated proactive inhibition (a preparatory process before the stimuli appears) and reactive inhibition (the inhibition of a pre-potent or already initiated response). However, it remains unclear whether both proactive and reactive inhibition are impaired in schizotypy and what are the neural mechanisms. The present event-related potential study used an adapted stop-signal task to examine the two inhibition processes and the underlying neural mechanisms in schizotypy compared to healthy controls (HC). Methods A total of 21 individuals with schizotypy and 25 matched HC participated in this study. To explore different degrees of proactive inhibition, we set three conditions: a “certain” go condition which no stop signal occurred, a “17% no go” condition in which stop signal would appear in 17% of trials, and a “33% no go” condition in which stop signal would appear in 33% of trials. All participants completed all the conditions, and EEG was recorded when participants completed the task. Results Behavioral results showed that in both schizotypy and HC, the reaction times (RT) of go trials were significantly prolonged as the no go percentage increased, and HC showed significantly longer go RT compared with schizotypy in both “17% no go” and “33% no go” conditions, suggesting greater proactive inhibition in HC. Stop signal reaction times (SSRTs) in “33% no go” condition was shorter than “17% no go” condition in both groups. Schizotypy showed significantly longer SSRTs in both “17% no go” and “33% no go” conditions than HC, indicating schizotypy relied more on reactive inhibition. ERP results showed that schizotypy showed larger overall N1 for go trials than HC irrespective of condition, which may indicate a compensation process in schizotypy. Schizotypy showed smaller N2 on both successful and unsuccessful stop trials in “17% no go” conditions than HC, while no group difference was found in “33% no go” conditions for stop trials, which may indicate impaired error processing. Discussion These results suggested that schizotypy tended to be impaired in both proactive control and reactive control processes.

scholarly journals Reconsidering electrophysiological markers of response inhibition in light of trigger failures in the stop‐signal task

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Skippen ◽  
W. R. Fulham ◽  
P. T. Michie ◽  
D. Matzke ◽  
A. Heathcote ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task

ERP correlates of response inhibition after-effects in the stop signal task

2010 ◽  
Vol 206 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Upton ◽  
Peter G. Enticott ◽  
Rodney J. Croft ◽  
Nicholas R. Cooper ◽  
Paul B. Fitzgerald
Keyword(s):  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
After Effects

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

2009 ◽  
Vol 29 (50) ◽  
pp. 15870-15877 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Chikazoe ◽  
K. Jimura ◽  
S. Hirose ◽  
K.-i. Yamashita ◽  
Y. Miyashita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task

Stopping and Restarting an Unfolding Action at Various Times

2003 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim McGarry ◽  
Romeo Chua ◽  
Ian M. Franks
Keyword(s):  
Nonlinear Function ◽  
Race Model ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Stochastic Independence ◽  
Timing Task ◽  
Stop And Go ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Horse Race Model

The ability to inhibit an unfolding action is usually investigated using a stop signal (or go—stop) task. The data from the stop-signal task are often described using a horse-race model whose key assumption is that each process (i.e., go, stop) exhibits stochastic independence. Using three variations of a coincident-timing task (i.e., go, go—stop, and go—stop—go) we extend previous considerations of stochastic independence by analysing the go latencies for prior effects of stopping. On random trials in the go—stop—go task the signal sweep was paused for various times at various distances before the target. Significant increases in latency errors were reported on those trials on which the signal was paused (p <.005). Further analyses of the pause trials revealed significant effects for both the stopping interval (p <.001) and the pause interval (p <.05). Tukey post hoc analyses demonstrated increased latency errors as a linear function of the stopping interval, as expected, and decreased latency errors as a nonlinear function of the pause interval. These latter results indicate that the latencies of the go process, as reflected in the latency errors, may not exhibit stochastic independence under certain conditions. Various control mechanisms were considered in an attempt to explain these data.

scholarly journals Subcortical processes of motor response inhibition during a stop signal task

NeuroImage ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 1352-1363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiang-Shan Ray Li ◽  
Peisi Yan ◽  
Rajita Sinha ◽  
Tien-Wen Lee
Keyword(s):  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Motor Response ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Motor Response Inhibition
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document