The paradoxical effect of warning on reaction time: Demonstrating proactive response inhibition with event-related potentials

Broussolle, Emmanuel; Ballanger, Bénédicte; Granjon, Lionel; Benraiss, Abdelrhani

doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2009.02.167

Cited by 59 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, this new theoretical approach may provide novel insights into top-down and bottom-up interactions in cognitive and motor control as well as related clinical disorders. Indeed, numerous symptoms that have been attributed to impaired attention or motor functions in standard cueing studies may be reinterpreted in terms of executive and inhibitory dysfunction Boulinguez et al 2009). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such cue-related response inhibition probably involves multiple executive and motor mechanisms (Duque et al 2010;Stinear et al 2009;Van Der Lubbe et al 2005). Importantly, this inhibitory control relies not only on postcue responsive mechanisms but also on precue proactive mechanisms that depend on the subject's expectations of the trial structure (Jaffard et al 2007Boulinguez et al 2008Boulinguez et al , 2009Boy et al 2010;Chen et al 2010). A major consequence of this is that these proactive mechanisms influence the neutral cue condition, whenever one is set up to measure attentional effects, leading to possible misinterpretations of classical behavioral outcomes ( Fig.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attention to baseline: does orienting visuospatial attention really facilitate target detection?

Albares

Criaud

Wardak

et al. 2011

Journal of Neurophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Albares M, Criaud M, Wardak C, Nguyen SC, Ben Hamed S, Boulinguez P. Attention to baseline: does orienting visuospatial attention really facilitate target detection? J Neurophysiol 106: 809-816, 2011. First published May 25, 2011 doi:10.1152/jn.00206.2011.-Standard protocols testing the orientation of visuospatial attention usually present spatial cues before targets and compare valid-cue trials with invalid-cue trials. The valid/invalid contrast results in a relative behavioral or physiological difference that is generally interpreted as a benefit of attention orientation. However, growing evidence suggests that inhibitory control of response is closely involved in this kind of protocol that requires the subjects to withhold automatic responses to cues, probably biasing behavioral and physiological baselines. Here, we used two experiments to disentangle the inhibitory control of automatic responses from orienting of visuospatial attention in a saccadic reaction time task in humans, a variant of the classical cue-target detection task and a sustained visuospatial attentional task. Surprisingly, when referring to a simple target detection task in which there is no need to refrain from reacting to avoid inappropriate responses, we found no consistent evidence of facilitation of target detection at the attended location. Instead, we observed a cost at the unattended location. Departing from the classical view, our results suggest that reaction time measures of visuospatial attention probably relie on the attenuation of elementary processes involved in visual target detection and saccade initiation away from the attended location rather than on facilitation at the attended location. This highlights the need to use proper control conditions in experimental designs to disambiguate relative from absolute cueing benefits on target detection reaction times, both in psychophysical and neurophysiological studies. saccades; electrooculography; inhibition; human ONE ATTRIBUTE of the selective attention system is its capacity to select a part of the environment over which an impending signal is to occur. Orienting visuospatial attention is known to facilitate information processing of stimuli at attended locations. A consistent behavioral outcome of this effect is a reduction of response latency [reaction time (RT)] to salient stimuli presented at the attended location

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Attention to baseline: does orienting visuospatial attention really facilitate target detection?

Albares

Criaud

Wardak

et al. 2011

Journal of Neurophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The responsivity reduction exhibited by the auditory WS group was presumably sustained during the block and was very likely caused by the proactive inhibition of the response triggering process described by Jaffard et al (2007) and Boulinguez et al (2009). The possibility that it occurred only in the WS-absent trials as a consequence, for example, of some confusion generated by the absence of the reference event represented by the WS in the trials sequence does not have any empirical support.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The neuroimaging and electrophysiological evidence presented by Jaffard et al (2007) and Boulinguez et al (2009), respectively, indicated the occurrence of the proactive inhibition of response triggering (i.e., tonic inhibition of motor control mechanisms) in blocks in which WS-absent and WS-present trials are mixed. According to these authors, this type of strategy would be adopted by the participants to avoid responding to the WS.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Squella (2007) showed that simple RT is longer when a spatially noninformative visual prime stimulus is presented 100 ms before the target stimulus in all trials of the session than when it is never presented in the session. Jaffard, Benraiss, Longcamp, Velay, & Boulinguez (2007) and Boulinguez, Ballanger, Granjon, & Benraiss (2009) showed that simple RT is much longer in visual WSabsent trials that are mixed with visual WS-present trials within the same block than in visual WS-absent trials that occur alone in a separate block. The TS used by Jaffard et al (2007) and Boulinguez et al (2009) consisted of the letter "X," which occurred randomly 10 degrees to the left and right of the fixation point.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of visual and auditory stimuli in a choice reaction time task.

Bueno¹,

Ribeiro-do-Valle²

2012

Psychology & Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect produced by a warning stimulus(i) (WS) in reaction time (RT) tasks is commonly attributed to a facilitation of sensorimotor mechanisms by alertness. Recently, evidence was presented that this effect is also related to a proactive inhibition of motor control mechanisms. This inhibition would hinder responding to the WS instead of the target stimulus (TS). Some studies have shown that auditory WS produce a stronger facilitatory effect than visual WS. The present study investigated whether the former WS also produces a stronger inhibitory effect than the latter WS. In one session, the RTs to a visual target in two groups of volunteers were evaluated. In a second session, subjects reacted to the visual target both with (50% of the trials) and without (50% of the trials) a WS. During trials, when subjects received a WS, one group received a visual WS and the other group was presented with an auditory WS. In the first session, the mean RTs of the two groups did not differ significantly. In the second session, the mean RT of the two groups in the presence of the WS was shorter than in their absence. The mean RT in the absence of the auditory WS was significantly longer than the mean RT in the absence of the visual WS. Mean RTs did not differ significantly between the present conditions of the visual and auditory WS. The longer RTs of the auditory WS group as opposed to the visual WS group in the WS-absent trials suggest that auditory WS exert a stronger inhibitory influence on responsivity than visual WS.

show abstract

Stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus and impulsivity: Release your horses

Ballanger¹,

Eimeren²,

Moro³

et al. 2009

Annals of Neurology

Self Cite

233

188

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-In Parkinson disease (PD) patients, deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) may contribute to certain impulsive behavior during high-conflict decisions. A neurocomputational model of the basal ganglia has recently been proposed that suggests this behavioral aspect may be related to the role played by the STN in relaying a "hold your horses" signal intended to allow more time to settle on the best option. The aim of the present study was 2-fold: 1) to extend these observations by providing evidence that the STN may influence and prevent the execution of any response even during low-conflict decisions; and 2) to identify the neural correlates of this effect.Methods-We measured regional cerebral blood flow during a Go/NoGo and a control (Go) task to study the motor improvement and response inhibition deficits associated with STN-DBS in patients with PD.Results-Although it improved Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale motor ratings and induced a global decrease in reaction time during task performance, STN-DBS impaired response inhibition, as revealed by an increase in commission errors in NoGo trials. These behavioral effects were accompanied by changes in synaptic activity consisting of a reduced activation in the cortical networks responsible for reactive and proactive response inhibition. CIHR Author Manuscript CIHR Author Manuscript CIHR Author ManuscriptInterpretation-The present results suggest that although it improves motor functions in PD patients, modulation of STN hyperactivity with DBS may tend at the same time to favor the appearance of impulsive behavior by acting on the gating mechanism involved in response initiation.Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) improves motor functions in patients with Parkinson disease (PD). 1,2 However, growing evidence suggests that STN-DBS also causes executive inhibitory deficits and impulsive behavior under high-conflict conditions. [3][4][5][6][7] Abnormal basal ganglia activity in PD produces a series of downstream effects affecting thalamic and cortical areas. 8 Within the basal ganglia, the STN plays a major role in motor control, and operating as a relay, influences response suppression by inhibiting thalamocortical programs. The fact that a large part of the STN receives motor inputs from the primary motor cortex (M1), the premotor cortex (PMC), the supplementary motor area (SMA), and the pre-SMA strongly supports its important motor contribution. 9,10 However, the STN also receives several projections from the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and inferior frontal cortex (IFC), as well as the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, accounting for a more cognitive aspect of motor control. 10,11 Within this framework, Frank and colleagues have proposed a neurocomputational model 7,12 in which the STN provides a dynamic "hold your horses" signal temporarily preventing the execution of any response in face of high-conflict decisions. According to their model, the STN would...

show abstract

The paradoxical effect of warning on reaction time: Demonstrating proactive response inhibition with event-related potentials

Cited by 59 publications

References 71 publications

Attention to baseline: does orienting visuospatial attention really facilitate target detection?

Attention to baseline: does orienting visuospatial attention really facilitate target detection?

Effects of visual and auditory stimuli in a choice reaction time task.

Stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus and impulsivity: Release your horses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About