Dawn M Eagle1, Andrea Bari, Trevor W Robbins. 1. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Site, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK. d.eagle@psychol.cam.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE: The term 'action inhibition' encapsulates the ability to prevent any form of planned physical response. Growing evidence suggests that different 'stages' or even subtypes of action inhibition activate subtly different neuropharmacological and neuroanatomical processes. OBJECTIVES: In this review, we present evidence from two commonly used and apparently similar behavioural tests, the stop-signal task and the go/no-go task, to determine if these have similar neuroanatomical and neurochemical modulation. RESULTS: Whilst performance of the stop-signal and go/no-go tasks is modulated across only subtly different anatomical networks, serotonin (5-HT) is strongly implicated in inhibitory control on the go/no-go but not the stop-signal task, whereas the stop-signal reaction time appears more sensitive to the action of noradrenaline. CONCLUSIONS: There is clear neuropharmacological and neuroanatomical evidence that stop-signal and go/no-go tasks represent different forms of action inhibition. This evidence translates with remarkable consistency across species. We discuss the possible implications of this evidence with respect to the development of novel therapeutic treatments for disorders in which inhibitory deficits are prominent and debilitating.
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE: The term 'action inhibition' encapsulates the ability to prevent any form of planned physical response. Growing evidence suggests that different 'stages' or even subtypes of action inhibition activate subtly different neuropharmacological and neuroanatomical processes. OBJECTIVES: In this review, we present evidence from two commonly used and apparently similar behavioural tests, the stop-signal task and the go/no-go task, to determine if these have similar neuroanatomical and neurochemical modulation. RESULTS: Whilst performance of the stop-signal and go/no-go tasks is modulated across only subtly different anatomical networks, serotonin (5-HT) is strongly implicated in inhibitory control on the go/no-go but not the stop-signal task, whereas the stop-signal reaction time appears more sensitive to the action of noradrenaline. CONCLUSIONS: There is clear neuropharmacological and neuroanatomical evidence that stop-signal and go/no-go tasks represent different forms of action inhibition. This evidence translates with remarkable consistency across species. We discuss the possible implications of this evidence with respect to the development of novel therapeutic treatments for disorders in which inhibitory deficits are prominent and debilitating.
Authors: J S Rubinsztein; R D Rogers; W J Riedel; M A Mehta; T W Robbins; B J Sahakian Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: M G Paule; A S Rowland; S A Ferguson; J J Chelonis; R Tannock; J M Swanson; F X Castellanos Journal: Neurotoxicol Teratol Date: 2000 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.763
Authors: Mark A Bellgrove; Christopher D Chambers; Alasdair Vance; Nicole Hall; Mary Karamitsios; John L Bradshaw Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2005-12-12 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Sarah Durston; John A Fossella; Martijn J Mulder; B J Casey; Tim B Ziermans; M Nathalie Vessaz; Herman VAN Engeland Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Martin Zack; Tracy M Woodford; Anne M Tremblay; Lindsay Steinberg; Laurie A Zawertailo; Usoa E Busto Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2010-10-06 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Dara G Ghahremani; Buyean Lee; Chelsea L Robertson; Golnaz Tabibnia; Andrew T Morgan; Natalie De Shetler; Amira K Brown; John R Monterosso; Adam R Aron; Mark A Mandelkern; Russell A Poldrack; Edythe D London Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Chelsea L Robertson; Kenji Ishibashi; Mark A Mandelkern; Amira K Brown; Dara G Ghahremani; Fred Sabb; Robert Bilder; Tyrone Cannon; Jacqueline Borg; Edythe D London Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: L Joos; A E Goudriaan; L Schmaal; N A J De Witte; W Van den Brink; B G C Sabbe; G Dom Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 4.530