Face the (trigger) failure: Trigger failures strongly drive the effect of reward on response inhibition

Doekemeijer, Roos Arwen; Verbruggen, Frederick; Boehler, C. Nico

doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2021.02.025

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several recent studies have demonstrated the importance of studying pTF. The probability of trigger failures increases in clinical populations compared to healthy controls (Swick and Ashley, 2020; Weigard et al, 2019), pTF increases when a participant is mind wandering compared to when they are focused on the task (Jana and Aron, 2022), and is modulated by reward (Doekemeijer et al, 2021). A recent study with a large sample size has suggested that the N100 event-related potential amplitude in an auditory stop signal task might be a marker of trigger failures (Skippen et al, 2020).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging the neural and algorithmic correlates of action-stopping

Jana

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid stopping of actions is crucial for survival. The algorithm underlying action-stopping is often described using the independent race model, where the race between independent go- and stop-processes determines whether one is able to stop. However, it is unclear whether humans have neural correlates of these processes. Here, using scalp potentials from three studies, we show that the mu (8-13 Hz) desynchronization over the contralateral motor cortex follows the predictions of a go-process: the activity builds up till an action is made. We also show that the low beta (13-20 Hz) activity over the frontal areas follows the predictions of a stop-process: the activity builds up after the stop signal and prior to the stopping latency. Using these neural correlates, we observed that: 1) The failure to stop mostly results from a rapid go-process, 2) The go-process seems to be influenced by the stop-process during the late stages of action-stopping, 3) Intrinsic prefrontal beta activity has a retardive effect on movement, 4) Violations of independence assumption in the failed stop trials may result from the activity of the stop-process. Future studies may use these neural correlates to resolve the mimicry between models of action-stopping.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging the neural and algorithmic correlates of action-stopping

Jana

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This performance improvement by reward is likely due to interactions between reward-related brain areas and networks related to perception and executive control (Pessoa & Engelmann, 2010; Schutte et al, 2019). Several studies have also shown that reward improves stopping performance (Boehler et al, 2014; Demurie et al, 2016; Doekemeijer, Verbruggen, & Boehler, 2021; Kohls, Herpertz-Dahlmann, & Konrad, 2009), indicating that rewarding successful impulse control may be a promising intervention strategy to improve impulse control.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is made available under a preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in The copyright holder for this this version posted December 23, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.23.521803 doi: bioRxiv preprint brain areas and networks related to perception and executive control (Pessoa & Engelmann, 2010;Schutte et al, 2019). Several studies have also shown that reward improves stopping performance (Boehler et al, 2014;Demurie et al, 2016;Doekemeijer, Verbruggen, & Boehler, 2021;Kohls, Herpertz-Dahlmann, & Konrad, 2009), indicating that rewarding successful impulse control may be a promising intervention strategy to improve impulse control.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in the effects of salience and reward on impulse control and action selection

Schutte

Schutter

Kenemans

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impulse control and adequate decision making are vital functions when it comes to detection and adherence to societal rules, especially in critical circumstances such as the Covid pandemic. In the current study we tested the hypothesis that increasing the salience of environmental cues would be most effective in improving impulse control, as assessed in a stop-signal task, in subjects with low environmental susceptibility as indexed by low pre-stimulus EEG alpha power. In addition, we anticipated that an external-reward intervention improves performance during a Go/No go task, especially in individuals with low task-induced motivation as indexed by low theta/ beta power ratios. High salience of stop signals enhanced stopping performance but there was no difference in responsivity to the salience intervention between participants with high and low EEG alpha power. Individuals with low theta/ beta power ratios responded more accurately when rewards were at stake. Together these results suggest that increasing the salience of external cues may help impulse control in general, whereas the effectiveness of external-reward interventions is higher in individuals with low task-induced motivation.

show abstract

“…SSRT is generally shorter when participants are motivated [ 39 ]. Interestingly, reward also lowered the incidence of trigger failures of the inhibition process [ 40 ], contributing to more efficient stop-signal processing with rewards.…”

Section: Proactive Inhibition: Pre-amping Reactive Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Conceptual Clarification of Proactive Inhibitory Control: A Review

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this selective review paper is to clarify potential confusion when referring to the term proactive inhibitory control. Illustrated by a concise overview of the literature, we propose defining reactive inhibition as the mechanism underlying stopping an action. On a stop trial, the stop signal initiates the stopping process that races against the ongoing action-related process that is triggered by the go signal. Whichever processes finishes first determines the behavioral outcome of the race. That is, stopping is either successful or unsuccessful in that trial. Conversely, we propose using the term proactive inhibition to explicitly indicate preparatory processes engaged to bias the outcome of the race between stopping and going. More specifically, these proactive processes include either pre-amping the reactive inhibition system (biasing the efficiency of the stopping process) or presetting the action system (biasing the efficiency of the go process). We believe that this distinction helps meaningful comparisons between various outcome measures of proactive inhibitory control that are reported in the literature and extends to experimental research paradigms other than the stop task.

show abstract

Face the (trigger) failure: Trigger failures strongly drive the effect of reward on response inhibition

Cited by 12 publications

References 60 publications

Bridging the neural and algorithmic correlates of action-stopping

Bridging the neural and algorithmic correlates of action-stopping

Individual differences in the effects of salience and reward on impulse control and action selection

Towards Conceptual Clarification of Proactive Inhibitory Control: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About