Proactive and Reactive Motor Inhibition in Top Athletes Versus Nonathletes

Abstract

We examined proactive (early restraint in preparation for stopping) and reactive (late correction to stop ongoing action) motor response inhibition in two groups of participants: professional athletes ( n = 28) and nonathletes ( n = 25). We recruited the elite athletes from Belgian national taekwondo and fencing teams. We estimated proactive and reactive inhibition with a modified version of the stop-signal task (SST) in which participants inhibited categorizing left/right arrows. The probability of the stop signal was manipulated across blocks of trials by providing probability cues from the background computer screen color (green = 0%, yellow =17%, orange = 25%, red = 33%). Participants performed two sessions of the SST, where proactive inhibition was operationalized with increased go-signal reaction time as a function of increased stop-signal probability and reactive inhibition was indicated by stop-signal reaction time latency. Athletes exhibited higher reactive inhibition performance than nonathletes. In addition, athletes exhibited higher proactive inhibition than nonathletes in Session 1 (but not Session 2) of the SST. As top-level athletes exhibited heightened reactive inhibition and were faster to reach and maintain consistent proactive motor response inhibition, these results confirm an evaluative process that can discriminate elite athleticism through a fine-grained analysis of inhibitory control.

Mouse Tracking to Explore Motor Inhibition Processes in Go/No-Go and Stop Signal Tasks

“…As such, the implementation of this procedure which characterizes the movement profile of responses could allow the more thorough investigation of neurocognitive modifications in health and disease. Motor response inhibition mechanisms regulating sport expertise in athletes performing in different disciplines represents a relevant field of application [ 69 ]. Moreover, since a relationship between neurocognitive deficits and sport injuries has been established, the use of sensitive approaches to assess the neurocognitive status of an athlete may open new avenues to identify athletes at risk of sport injuries [ 70 , 71 ].…”

A Time Series-Based Point Estimation of Stop Signal Reaction Times: More Evidence on the Role of Reactive Inhibition-Proactive Inhibition Interplay on the SSRT Estimations

“…The external inhibition index is the one calculated based on the external manipulation of stop signal probability levels in the Stop Signal Task paradigm. The external proactive inhibition index is calculated based on the difference (or a variation of the differences) of GORTs in the associated arms of the SST paradigm [ 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 37 , 38 ]. For example, .…”

“…The Stop Signal Task (SST) paradigm is a useful tool by which inhibitory control can be studied [ 2 ]. The SST has four versions: the Standard Stop Signal Task (SSST) [ 3 , 4 ], the Stop Signal Anticipation Task (SSAT) [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ], the Conditional Stop Signal Task( CSST) [ 11 , 12 ], and the AX Continuous Performance Task(AXCPT) [ 13 , 14 ]. The Standard SST includes a go task and a stop task.…”

Future Portrait of the Athletic Brain: Mechanistic Understanding of Human Sport Performance Via Animal Neurophysiology of Motor Behavior

“…Among the behavioral parameters shown to be modified in athletes, inhibitory control (Benedetti et al, 2020), i.e., the suppression of inappropriate behavioral responses, is improved in elite athletes (Brevers et al, 2018), and there is a robust difference among players of OSS vs. CSS, with the former outclassing the latter (Wang et al, 2013a). Skilled athletes can predict the outcome of actions performed by others, based on the kinematic information inherent in others' actions, earlier and more accurately than less-skilled athletes (Aglioti et al, 2008;Unenaka et al, 2018).…”