Literature DB >> 18440947

Sensory MEG responses predict successful and failed inhibition in a stop-signal task.

C N Boehler1, T F Münte, R M Krebs, H-J Heinze, M A Schoenfeld, J-M Hopf.   

Abstract

In the present study magnetoencephalographic recordings were performed to investigate the neural mechanisms underlying the stopping of manual responses. Subjects performed in a Stop-signal task in which Go-stimuli (S1), requiring a rapid motor response, were sometimes rapidly followed by a Stop-stimulus (S2) indicating to withhold the already initiated response to S1. Success of stopping strongly depended on the early perceptual processing of S1 and S2 reflected by the magnetic N1 component. Enhanced processing of S1 facilitated the execution of the movement, whereas enhanced processing of S2 favored its inhibition. This suggests that the processing resources for the subsequent stimuli are limited and need to be shared. This sharing of resources appeared to arise from adjustments made on a trial-by-trial basis, in that systematic reaction time prolongations on Go-trials following Stop-trials versus following Go-trials were accompanied by attenuated sensory processing to the Go-stimulus similar to that seen in successful versus unsuccessful stopping in Stop-trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18440947     DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhn063

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cereb Cortex        ISSN: 1047-3211            Impact factor:   5.357


  36 in total

1.  Pinning down response inhibition in the brain--conjunction analyses of the Stop-signal task.

Authors:  C N Boehler; L G Appelbaum; R M Krebs; J M Hopf; M G Woldorff
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2010-05-07       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 2.  How human electrophysiology informs psychopharmacology: from bottom-up driven processing to top-down control.

Authors:  J Leon Kenemans; Seppo Kähkönen
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 7.853

3.  Event-related fields evoked by vocal response inhibition: a comparison of younger and older adults.

Authors:  Leidy J Castro-Meneses; Blake W Johnson; Paul F Sowman
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Strategic down-regulation of attentional resources as a mechanism of proactive response inhibition.

Authors:  Zachary D Langford; Ruth M Krebs; Durk Talsma; Marty G Woldorff; C N Boehler
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 3.386

5.  Response selection codes in neurophysiological data predict conjoint effects of controlled and automatic processes during response inhibition.

Authors:  Witold X Chmielewski; Moritz Mückschel; Christian Beste
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2018-01-15       Impact factor: 5.038

6.  Distinguishing stimulus and response codes in theta oscillations in prefrontal areas during inhibitory control of automated responses.

Authors:  Moritz Mückschel; Gabriel Dippel; Christian Beste
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 5.038

7.  Reward improves cancellation and restraint inhibition across childhood and adolescence.

Authors:  Katia J Sinopoli; Russell Schachar; Maureen Dennis
Journal:  Dev Psychol       Date:  2011-09

8.  Defining the Neural Substrate of the Adult Outcome of Childhood ADHD: A Multimodal Neuroimaging Study of Response Inhibition.

Authors:  Eszter Szekely; Gustavo P Sudre; Wendy Sharp; Ellen Leibenluft; Philip Shaw
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 18.112

9.  How do emotion and motivation direct executive control?

Authors:  Luiz Pessoa
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2009-03-13       Impact factor: 20.229

10.  Interactions between cognition and motivation during response inhibition.

Authors:  Srikanth Padmala; Luiz Pessoa
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2009-10-29       Impact factor: 3.139

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.