Literature DB >> 17909771

The internal structure of stopping as revealed by a sensory detection task.

Eammon Walsh1, Patrick Haggard.   

Abstract

An important aspect of everyday behaviour is the ability to cancel a prepared movement. In Experiment 1, subjects prepared a response, and then either executed it in response to a subsequent Go signal, or cancelled the movement if a NoGo signal occurred. Subjects had to detect weak shocks, which were delivered after the signals on some trials. Results were compared to a prior instruction condition in which subjects knew at the start of the trial if they should move or not. We found that detection rates on move trials were lower than on non-move trials, consistent with sensory suppression. There was no difference between conditions in detection for move trials. However, detection rates for non-move trials were significantly lower in the NoGo than in the prior instruction condition, suggesting an element of sensory suppression associated with actions, which are prepared, but then inhibited before execution. In Experiment 2, the delay between the NoGo signal and shock was varied. Detection rates improved monotonically as the interval increased from 0 up to 200 ms. The recovery from sensory suppression offers a new way of measuring the processes triggered by a NoGo signal. Our results suggest that when a prepared movement is inhibited the dismantling of the sensory consequences of the motor command takes at least 200 ms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17909771     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-007-1128-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  16 in total

1.  Sensory input to primate spinal cord is presynaptically inhibited during voluntary movement.

Authors:  Kazuhiko Seki; Steve I Perlmutter; Eberhard E Fetz
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2003-11-16       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  Supplementary motor area provides an efferent signal for sensory suppression.

Authors:  Patrick Haggard; Ben Whitford
Journal:  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res       Date:  2004-03

3.  Selective inhibition of movement.

Authors:  James P Coxon; Cathy M Stinear; Winston D Byblow
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-01-24       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Measuring online volitional response control with a continuous tracking task.

Authors:  Sharon Morein-Zamir; Romeo Chua; Ian Franks; Paul Nagelkerke; Alan Kingstone
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2006-11

5.  Time course and magnitude of movement-related gating of tactile detection in humans. I. Importance of stimulus location.

Authors:  S R Williams; J Shenasa; C E Chapman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Gating of sensation and evoked potentials following foot stimulation during human gait.

Authors:  J Duysens; A A Tax; S Nawijn; W Berger; T Prokop; E Altenmüller
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Strategies and mechanisms in nonselective and selective inhibitory motor control.

Authors:  R De Jong; M G Coles; G D Logan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  On the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time responses: a model and a method.

Authors:  G D Logan; W B Cowan; K A Davis
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1984-04       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Gating of somatosensory evoked potentials during different kinds of movement in man.

Authors:  D N Rushton; J C Rothwell; M D Craggs
Journal:  Brain       Date:  1981-09       Impact factor: 13.501

10.  Predictability influences stopping and response control.

Authors:  Sharon Morein-Zamir; Romeo Chua; Ian Franks; Paul Nagelkerke; Alan Kingstone
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.332

View more
  6 in total

1.  Somatosensory effects of action inhibition: a study with the stop-signal paradigm.

Authors:  Eamonn Walsh; Patrick Haggard
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-02-18       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  The effects of acoustic startle on sensorimotor attenuation prior to movement.

Authors:  Eamonn Walsh; Patrick Haggard
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-05-21       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Gating of vibrotactile detection during visually guided bimanual reaches.

Authors:  Gavin Buckingham; David P Carey; Francisco L Colino; John deGrosbois; Gordon Binsted
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-10-23       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Parallel processing streams for motor output and sensory prediction during action preparation.

Authors:  Max-Philipp Stenner; Markus Bauer; Hans-Jochen Heinze; Patrick Haggard; Raymond J Dolan
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Mere expectation to move causes attenuation of sensory signals.

Authors:  Martin Voss; James N Ingram; Daniel M Wolpert; Patrick Haggard
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-08-06       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Attention Wins over Sensory Attenuation in a Sound Detection Task.

Authors:  Liyu Cao; Joachim Gross
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-24       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.