Using subjective expectations to model the neural underpinnings of proactive inhibition

Abstract

Proactive inhibition – the anticipation of having to stop a response – relies on objective information contained in cue‐related contingencies in the environment, as well as on the subjective interpretation derived from these cues. To date, most studies of brain areas underlying proactive inhibition have exclusively considered the objective predictive value of environmental cues, by varying the probability of stop‐signals. However, by only taking into account the effect of different cues on brain activation, the subjective component of how cues affect behavior is ignored. We used a modified stop‐signal response task that includes a measurement for subjective expectation, to investigate the effect of this subjective interpretation. After presenting a cue indicating the probability that a stop‐signal will occur, subjects were asked whether they expected a stop‐signal to occur. Furthermore, response time was used to retrospectively model brain activation related to stop‐expectation. We found more activation during the cue period for 50% stop‐signal probability, when contrasting with 0%, in the mid and inferior frontal gyrus, inferior parietal lobe and putamen. When contrasting expected vs. unexpected trials, we found modest effects in the mid frontal gyrus, parietal, and occipital areas. With our third contrast, we modeled brain activation during the cue with trial‐by‐trial variances in response times. This yielded activation in the putamen, inferior parietal lobe, and mid frontal gyrus. Our study is the first to use the behavioral effects of proactive inhibition to identify the underlying brain regions, by employing an unbiased task‐design that temporally separates cue and response.

Control of response interference: caudate nucleus contributes to selective inhibition

“…Furthermore, the current results add to previous findings in both brain lesion 38,45 and neuro-computational modeling studies 33 that applied (variants of) the Simon task by providing support for a (functional) role of the dorsal striatum (particularly the caudate nucleus) in selective inhibition. Several previous functional imaging studies have also implicated that the striatum is engaged during conditions that entail the anticipation [81][82][83] and (subsequent) preparation of selective inhibitory control 84,85 . Specifically, these studies applied a selective stop-signal task in which subjects were instructed to initiate two responses (which should be executed in go-trials) and to suppress one particular response while continuing the other in case of a stop-signal.…”

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

“…This section deals with calculation and comparisons of internal inhibition indices inspired by trial by trial approach proposed in ([ 10 , 19 ]). Table 3 presents the comparison results for proactive index Δ GORT and reactive index SSRT :…”

“…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.…”

Self-regulation in the pre-adolescent brain

“…In the case of inhibition, it has been shown that while children at the end of childhood can inhibit prepotent responses, a low-level executive function, they further develop this skill during adolescence ( Vink et al, 2014 ). This improvement is associated with the rise of proactive response strategies that allow for more efficient processing by engaging inhibitory functions prior to the actual inhibition, leading to the anticipatory slowing down of responses ( Zandbelt and Vink, 2010 , Pas et al, 2017 , Pas et al, 2019 ). The true progress across childhood and adolescence is not better executive functions in itself, but rather more effective use of these functions due to their integration with other high-level executive functions such as planning.…”

“…The central hypothesis is that children who show high levels of self-regulation in daily life will also show higher levels of reactive and proactive inhibitory control. Behaviorally, we expect children scoring higher on self-regulation, to demonstrate more proactive inhibitory control during the task, resulting in the slowing down of responses in anticipation of a stop-signal on go trials ( Pas et al, 2019 , Vink et al, 2014 ). In the brain, we expect this measure to be associated with the establishment of frontal control over the rest of the brain ( Cools, 2011 ).…”