The effects of impulsivity and proactive inhibition on reactive inhibition and the go process: insights from vocal and manual stop signal tasks

Castro-Meneses, Leidy J.; Johnson, Blake W.; Sowman, Paul F.

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00529

Cited by 33 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…the effect size is small) that we would require a more sensitive task to find such a difference. For example, a recent study (Castro-Meneses et al 2015) that did find that vocal responses were slower compared to manual responses by 17 ms, used a simpler stop signal task in which the go task was a one-choice task compared to this study in which we used a two-choice go task.…”

Section: Reactive Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…In their study, proactive inhibition was minimal in their third experiment (55 ms) compared to their first experiment in which proactive inhibition was 111.4 ms. Moreover, in a very recent study (Castro-Meneses et al 2015) it was found that reactive inhibition was related to proactive inhibition only in the high compared to the low probability stops. Interestingly, proactive inhibition was of 142 and 51 ms in the high and low probability stops respectively.…”

Section: Proactive Inhibition and Its Relationship With Reactive Inhimentioning

confidence: 94%

“…While two studies failed to find significant differences in reactive inhibition between the vocal and manual effector systems (Etchell et al 2012;van den Wildenberg and Christoffels 2010). Other study found that vocal reactive stopping was slower by 17 ms compared to manual reactive stopping (Castro-Meneses et al 2015). However, Xue et al (2008) found that inhibition of word naming (150 ms) was 25 ms faster than inhibition of manual responses (175 ms)-an observation that seems at odds with the neurophysiology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…However, evidence shows that the efficacy of response inhibition may vary depending on the effector system, for example, some studies have found that manual response inhibition is slower than ocular response inhibition (Boucher et al 2007;Curtis et al 2005;Logan and Irwin 2000). In addition, other studies have found that manual response inhibition is faster than vocal response inhibition (Castro-Meneses et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Vocal response inhibition is enhanced by anodal tDCS over the right prefrontal cortex

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stopping outright (reactive inhibition) and slowing down (proactive inhibition) are types of response inhibition which have mainly been investigated in the manual effector system. This study compared reactive inhibition across manual and vocal effector systems, examined the effects of excitatory anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (anodal tDCS) over the right prefrontal cortex (right-PFC) and looked at the relationship between reactive and proactive inhibition. We hypothesised (1) that vocal reactive inhibition would be less effective than manual reactive inhibition as evidenced by longer stop signal reaction times; (2) that anodal tDCS would enhance both vocal and manual reactive inhibitions and (3) that proactive and reactive inhibitions would be positively related. We tested 14 participants over two sessions (one session with anodal tDCS and one session with sham stimulation) and applied stimulation protocol in the middle of the session, i.e. only during the second of three phases. We used a stop signal task across two stop conditions: relevant and irrelevant stop conditions in which stopping was required or ignored, respectively. We found that reactive inhibition was faster during and immediately after anodal tDCS relative to sham. We also found that greater level of proactive inhibition enhanced reactive inhibition (indexed by shorter stop signal reaction times). These results support the hypothesis that the right-PFC is part of a core network for reactive inhibition and supports previous contention that proactive inhibition is possibly modulated via preactivating the reactive inhibition network.

show abstract

Section: Reactive Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Proactive Inhibition and Its Relationship With Reactive Inhimentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Vocal response inhibition is enhanced by anodal tDCS over the right prefrontal cortex

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This highlights the need to better understand the underlying physiological differences between ADHD patients and healthy subjects leading to different tDCS effects. 35 . In the current study we found that tDCS to the left DLPFC leads to a significant increase on the time patients withhold their response in Go-trials waiting for the Stop Signal to appear, which is correlated with a significant increase in P200 amplitude.…”

Section: Flanker Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

tDCS to the left DLPFC improves cognitive control but not action cancellation in patients with ADHD: a behavioral and electrophysiological study

Dubreuil-Vall

Gomez-Bernal

Villegas

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder associated with significant morbidity and mortality that affects 5% of children, adolescents and adults worldwide. Pharmacological and behavioral therapies exist, but critical symptoms such as dysexecutive deficits remain unaffected. In this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, cross-over study we assess the cognitive and physiological effects of tDCS in adult ADHD patients in order to understand (1) the role of DLPFC laterality in ADHD dysexecutive deficits, (2) the physiological dynamics sustaining the modulation of executive function by tDCS, and (3) the impact of state-dependent dynamics of tDCS effect. The participants consisted of a random sample of 40 adult patients with a primary diagnosis of ADHD. Each patient performed three experimental sessions in which they received 30 minutes of 2mA tDCS stimulation targeting the left DLPFC (anodal F3, cathodal Fp2), the right DLPFC (anodal F4, cathodal Fp1) and Sham. Before and after each session, half of the patients completed the Flanker task (EFT) and the other half performed the Stop Signal Task (SST), while we assessed cognitive (reaction time, accuracy) and neurophysiological measures (EEG Event-Related-Potentials). Results show that anodal tDCS to the left DLPFC modulated cognitive (reaction time) and physiological measures (P300 amplitude) in the Flanker task in a state-dependent manner, but there were no significant effects in the Stop Signal Reaction Time of the SST. We interpret these results as an improvement in interference cognitive control (captured by the EFT) but not in action cancellation (assessed by the SST), supporting the hypothesis of the existence of different impulsivity constructs with overlapping but distinct anatomical substrates and therapeutic strategies. We conclude that anodal tDCS over the left DLPFC using a simple bipolar montage has pro-cognitive effects in dysexecutive patients with ADHD associated with the modulation of physiological signatures of cognitive control (i.e. treatment target), supporting specific hypotheses and strategies for neuromodulation treatment development under an experimental therapeutics framework aiming to link target engagement (cognitive and physiological) with clinical benefit. In addition, we also provide empirical evidence supporting the value of the P200, N200 and P300 as cross-sectional biomarkers of cognitive performance across tasks. Last, we provide mechanistic support for the state-dependent nature of the effects of tDCS, highlighting the importance of controlling the neural states before and during stimulation as a relevant therapeutic strategy.

show abstract

Preparation facilitates response inhibition based on a stop‐signal task

Jia

Cui

et al. 2023

PsyCh Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The effects of impulsivity and proactive inhibition on reactive inhibition and the go process: insights from vocal and manual stop signal tasks

Cited by 33 publications

References 55 publications

Vocal response inhibition is enhanced by anodal tDCS over the right prefrontal cortex

Vocal response inhibition is enhanced by anodal tDCS over the right prefrontal cortex

tDCS to the left DLPFC improves cognitive control but not action cancellation in patients with ADHD: a behavioral and electrophysiological study

Preparation facilitates response inhibition based on a stop‐signal task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About