Spatiotemporal brain signal associated with high and low levels of proactive motor response inhibition

Brevers, Damien; Chéron, Guy; Dahman, T; Petieau, Mathieu; Palmero‐Soler, Ernesto; Foucart, Jennifer; Verbanck, Paul; Cebolla, Ana Maria

doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2020.147064

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There was evidence of proactive slowing from session one to session two, reflected in the delayed going response. This slowing is purported to be an example of proactive motor RI (Brevers et al 2020 ; Greenhouse and Wessel 2013 ; Leotti and Wager 2010 ; Schachar et al 2004 ; Verbruggen et al 2013 , 2008 ) and could be attributed to participants focusing on successful stopping at the expense of fast responses on Go trials (i.e. the opposite strategy to participants in Enge et al 2014 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring stop signal reaction time over two sessions of the anticipatory response inhibition task

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various behavioural tasks measure response inhibition encompassing the ability to cancel unwanted actions, evaluated via stop signal reaction time (SSRT). It is unclear whether SSRT is an unchangeable inherent measure of inhibitory network integrity or whether it can improve with repetition. The current study explored if and how SSRT changed over two sessions for the Anticipatory Response Inhibition Task (ARIT), and how this compared with the Stop Signal Task (SST). Forty-four participants repeated the ARIT and SST over two sessions. SSRT and its constituent measures (Go trial reaction time, stop signal delay) were calculated. SSRT reflecting non-selective response inhibition was consistent between sessions in the ARIT and SST (both p > 0.293). Reaction time and stop signal delay also remained stable across sessions in the ARIT (all p > 0.063), whereas in the SST, reaction time (p = 0.013) and stop signal delay (p = 0.009) increased. SSRT reflecting behaviourally selective stopping on the ARIT improved (p < 0.001) over two sessions, which was underpinned by changes to reaction time (p < 0.001) and stop signal delay (p < 0.001). Overall, the maximal efficiency of non-selective inhibition remained stable across two sessions in the ARIT. Results of the SST confirmed that non-selective inhibition can, however, be affected by more than inhibitory network integrity. Behaviourally selective stopping on the ARIT changed across sessions, suggesting the sequential neural process captured by the SSRT occurred more quickly in session two. These findings have implications for future studies that necessitate behavioural measures over multiple sessions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring stop signal reaction time over two sessions of the anticipatory response inhibition task

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There was evidence of proactive slowing from session one to session two, reflected in the delayed going response. This slowing is purported to be an example of proactive motor RI (Schachar et al, 2004; Verbruggen et al, 2008; Verbruggen et al, 2013; Brevers et al, 2020)and could be attributed to participants focusing on successful stopping at the expense of fast responses on Go trials (i.e. the opposite strategy to participants in Enge et al 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Stop Signal Reaction Time Over Two Sessions of the Anticipatory Response Inhibition Task

Hall

Jenkinson

MacDonald

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various behavioural tasks can measure the motor component of impulse control, response inhibition. Response inhibition encompasses the ability to cancel unwanted actions and is evaluated via stop signal reaction time (SSRT). The current study explored the effect of two sessions on SSRT within the anticipatory response inhibition task (ARIT) and how this compared to the stop signal task (SST). Forty-four participants completed two sessions of the ARIT and SST, 24 hours apart. SSRT and its constituent measures (Go trial reaction time, stop signal delay) were calculated. SSRT reflecting non-selective inhibition was consistent between sessions in both tasks (both p > .293). Reaction time and stop signal delay also remained stable across sessions in the ARIT (all p > .063), whereas in the SST, both reaction time (p = .013) and stop signal delay (p = .009) increased. Across the two sessions, SSRT reflecting partial inhibition improved (p < .001), which was underpinned by changes to reaction time (p < .001) and stop signal delay (p < .001). The maximal efficiency of non-selective inhibition remained stable across two sessions in the ARIT. Results of the SST confirmed that non-selective inhibition can however be affected by more than inhibitory network integrity when Go trial reaction times are not constrained in task design. Partial response inhibition measures changed across sessions, suggesting the sequential process captured by the SSRT occurred more quickly in session two. These findings highlight the absence/extent of inherent SSRT changes possible during multiple-session study designs e.g., pre/post, or active/sham comparisons.

show abstract

“…In previous single-task studies, the medial frontal slow negative potential identified as CNV ( Walter et al, 1964 ) has been consistently employed as a marker of the amount of cognitive effort devoted to preparation and pro-active task control (e.g., Tecce, 1972 ; van Boxtel and Brunia, 1994 ; Chaillou et al, 2018 ; Gajewski et al, 2020b ; Thönes et al, 2018 ), including proactive inhibitory control ( Liebrand et al, 2017 ; Brevers et al, 2020 ) and temporal orienting ( Berchicci et al, 2020 ). According to current regression models, enhanced midline fronto-central negative potentials predicted improved performance of both T1 and T2 ( Figure 4 and Supplementary Table 3 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural Correlates of Aging-Related Differences in Pro-active Control in a Dual Task

Yordanova

Gajewski

Getzmann

et al. 2021

Front. Aging Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Multi-tasking is usually impaired in older people. In multi-tasking, a fixed order of sub-tasks can improve performance by promoting a time-structured preparation of sub-tasks. How proactive control prioritizes the pre-activation or inhibition of complex tasks in older people has received no sufficient clarification so far.Objective: To explore the effects of aging on neural proactive control mechanisms in a dual task.Methodology: To address this question, the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm was used. Two 2-alternative-forced-choice reaction tasks with a predefined order (T1 and T2) signaled by a cue had to be executed simultaneously or consecutively by young (mean age 25.1 years, n = 36) and old subjects (mean age 70.4 years, n = 118). Performance indices of dual-task preparation were used to assess the focused preparation of T1 and T2. To compare preparatory mechanisms at the neurophysiologic level, multi-channel electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded and negative slow cortical potentials (SCPs) were analyzed as objective markers of the amount and localization of cortical pre-activation before sub-task presentation.Results: Dual-task performance was significantly slower in old adults. T1 performance was facilitated in both age groups, but T2 processing in old adults was not optimized by the temporal structure as efficiently as in young adults. Also, only young adults manifested a stable pattern of focused of negative slow-wave activity increase at medial frontal and right-hemisphere posterior regions, which was associated with a coordinated preparatory T1 pre-activation and T2 deferment, while old adults manifested a broad topographic distribution of negative SCPs associated with a pre-activation of sensory and motor processes.Conclusions: These observations demonstrate that the proactive preparation for dual tasking is altered with aging. It is suggested that in young adults, attention-based pre-activation of working memory and inhibitory networks in the right hemisphere synchronizes the simultaneous preparation of the two sub-tasks, whereas in old adults, sensory and motor networks appear to be non-specifically pre-activated for subsequent deferred mode of processing.

show abstract

Spatiotemporal brain signal associated with high and low levels of proactive motor response inhibition

Cited by 6 publications

References 60 publications

Exploring stop signal reaction time over two sessions of the anticipatory response inhibition task

Exploring stop signal reaction time over two sessions of the anticipatory response inhibition task

Exploring Stop Signal Reaction Time Over Two Sessions of the Anticipatory Response Inhibition Task

Neural Correlates of Aging-Related Differences in Pro-active Control in a Dual Task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About