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

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Skippen ◽  
W. R Fulham ◽  
P.T Michie ◽  
D Matzke ◽  
A Heathcote ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Gaussian Model ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Onset Latency ◽  
Healthy Sample ◽  
Inhibition Process ◽  
Hierarchical Bayesian Methods ◽  
Trigger Failure

AbstractWe investigate the neural correlates underpinning response inhibition using a parametric ex-Gaussian model of stop-signal task performance, fit with hierarchical Bayesian methods, in a large healthy sample (N=156). The parametric model accounted for trigger failure (i.e., failures to initiate the inhibition process) and returned an SSRT estimate (SSRTEXG3) that was attenuated by ≈65ms compared to traditional non-parametric SSRT estimates (SSRTint). The amplitude and latency of the N1 and P3 event related potential components were derived for both stop-success and stop-failure trials and compared to behavioural estimates derived from traditional (SSRTint) and parametric (SSRTEXG3, trigger failure) models. Both the fronto-central N1 and P3 peaked earlier and were larger for stop-success than stop-failure trials. For stop-failure trials only, N1 peak latency correlated with both SSRT estimates as well as trigger failure and temporally coincided with SSRTEXG3, but not SSRTint. In contrast, P3 peak and onset latency were not associated with any behavioural estimates of inhibition for either trial type. While overall the N1 peaked earlier for stop-success than stop-failure trials, this effect was not found in poor task performers (i.e., high trigger failure/slow SSRT). These findings are consistent with attentional modulation of both the speed and reliability of the inhibition process, but not for poor performers. Together with the absence of any P3 onset latency effect, our findings suggest that attentional mechanisms are important in supporting speeded and reliable inhibition processes required in the 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.

Response inhibition of children with ADHD in the stop-signal task: An event-related potential study

2012 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdalena Senderecka ◽  
Anna Grabowska ◽  
Jakub Szewczyk ◽  
Krzysztof Gerc ◽  
Roman Chmylak
Keyword(s):  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Children With Adhd ◽  
Potential Study

scholarly journals Reliability of triggering inhibitory process is a better predictor of impulsivity than SSRT

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Skippen ◽  
Dora Matzke ◽  
Andrew Heathcote ◽  
Ross Fulham ◽  
Patricia Michie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Community Sample ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Stop Signal Reaction Time ◽  
Risky Behaviours ◽  
Inhibition Process ◽  
External Stimuli ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Trigger Failure

The ability to control behaviour is thought to rely at least partly on adequately suppressing impulsive responses to external stimuli. However, the evidence for a relationship between response inhibition ability and impulse control is weak and inconsistent. This study investigates the relationship between response inhibition and both self-report and behavioural measures of impulsivity as well as engagement in risky behaviours in a large community sample (N=174) of healthy adolescents and young adults (15-35yrs). Using a stop-signal paradigm with a number parity go task, we implemented a novel hierarchical Bayesian model of response inhibition that estimates stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) as a distribution and also accounts for failures to react to the stop-signal (i.e., “trigger failure”), and failure to react to the choice stimulus (i.e., “go failure” or omission errors). In line with previous studies, the model reduced estimates of SSRT by approximately 100ms compared with traditional non-parametric SSRT estimation techniques. We found significant relationships between behavioural and self-report measures of impulsivity and traditionally estimated SSRT, that did not hold for the model-based SSRT estimates. Instead, behavioural impulsivity measures were correlated with rate of trigger failure. The relationship between trigger failure and impulsivity suggests that the former may index a higher order inhibition process, whereas SSRT may index a more automatic inhibition process. We suggest that the existence of distinct response inhibition processes that may be associated with different levels of cognitive control.

Alterations in the Ventral Attention Network During the Stop-Signal Task in Children With ADHD: An Event-Related Potential Source Imaging Study

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 639-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tieme W. P. Janssen ◽  
Dirk J. Heslenfeld ◽  
Rosa van Mourik ◽  
Katleen Geladé ◽  
Athanasios Maras ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Anterior Cingulate ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Adhd Group ◽  
Attention Network ◽  
Children With Adhd ◽  
Related Potentials

Objective: Deficits in response inhibition figure prominently in models of ADHD; however, attentional deficiencies may better explain previous findings of impaired response inhibition in ADHD. We tested this hypothesis at the neurophysiological level. Method: Dense array ERPs (event-related potentials) were obtained for 46 children with ADHD and 51 controls using the stop-signal task (SST). Early and late components were compared between groups. N2 and P3 components were localized with LAURA distributed linear inverse solution. Results: A success-related N1 modulation was only apparent in the ADHD group. N2 and P3 amplitudes were reduced in ADHD. During the successful inhibition N2, the ADHD group showed reduced activation in right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG), supplementary motor area (SMA), and right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ), and during failed inhibition in the rIFG. During the successful inhibition P3, reduced activation was found in anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and SMA. Conclusion: Impairments in the ventral attention network contribute to the psychopathology of ADHD and challenge the dominant view that ADHD is underpinned by impaired inhibitory control.

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 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
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document