Literature DB >> 22245527

The influence of different Stop-signal response time estimation procedures on behavior-behavior and brain-behavior correlations.

C Nicolas Boehler1, L Gregory Appelbaum, Ruth M Krebs, Jens-Max Hopf, Marty G Woldorff.   

Abstract

The fundamental cognitive-control function of inhibitory control over motor behavior has been extensively investigated using the Stop-signal task. The critical behavioral parameter describing stopping efficacy is the Stop-signal response time (SSRT), and correlations with estimates of this parameter are commonly used to establish that other variables (e.g., other behavioral measures or brain activity measures) are closely related to inhibitory motor control. Recently, however, it has been argued that SSRT estimates can be strongly distorted if participants strategically slow down their responses over the course of the experiment, resulting in the SSRT no longer reliably representing response-inhibition efficacy. Here, we performed new analyses on behavioral and functional data from an fMRI version of the Stop-signal task to gauge the consequences of using different SSRT estimation approaches that are differentially prone to the influence of strategic response slowing. The results indicate that the SSRT estimation approach can dramatically change behavior-behavior correlations. Specifically, a correlation between the SSRT and Go-trial accuracy that was highly significant with one estimation approach, virtually disappeared for the other. Additional analyses indeed supported that this effect was related to strategic response slowing. Concerning brain-behavior correlations, only the left anterior insula was found to be significantly correlated with the SSRT within the set of areas tested here. Interestingly, this brain-behavior correlation differed little for the different SSRT-estimation procedures. In sum, the current results highlight that different SSRT-estimation procedures can strongly influence the distribution of SSRT values across subjects, which in turn can ramify into correlational analyses with other parameters.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22245527      PMCID: PMC3306010          DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2012.01.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Brain Res        ISSN: 0166-4328            Impact factor:   3.332


  39 in total

1.  Deconvolution of event-related fMRI responses in fast-rate experimental designs: tracking amplitude variations.

Authors:  H Hinrichs; M Scholz; C Tempelmann; M G Woldorff; A M Dale; H J Heinze
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Imaging response inhibition in a stop-signal task: neural correlates independent of signal monitoring and post-response processing.

Authors:  Chiang-shan Ray Li; Cong Huang; R Todd Constable; Rajita Sinha
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2006-01-04       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Development of inhibitory control across the life span.

Authors:  B R Williams; J S Ponesse; R J Schachar; G D Logan; R Tannock
Journal:  Dev Psychol       Date:  1999-01

4.  In search of the point of no return: the control of response processes.

Authors:  Ritske de Jong; Michael G H Coles; Gordon D Logan; Gabriele Gratton
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Event-related fMRI: characterizing differential responses.

Authors:  K J Friston; P Fletcher; O Josephs; A Holmes; M D Rugg; R Turner
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 6.556

6.  Electrophysiological activity underlying inhibitory control processes in normal adults.

Authors:  Mariana Schmajuk; Mario Liotti; Laura Busse; Marty G Woldorff
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2005-08-10       Impact factor: 3.139

Review 7.  Attention deficit and impulsivity: selecting, shifting, and stopping.

Authors:  J L Kenemans; E M Bekker; M Lijffijt; C C E Overtoom; L M Jonkman; M N Verbaten
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.997

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.  A meta-analytic review of stopping performance in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: deficient inhibitory motor control?

Authors:  Marijn Lijffijt; J Leon Kenemans; Marinus N Verbaten; Herman van Engeland
Journal:  J Abnorm Psychol       Date:  2005-05

10.  On the ability to inhibit thought and action: general and special theories of an act of control.

Authors:  Gordon D Logan; Trisha Van Zandt; Frederick Verbruggen; Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 8.934

View more
  16 in total

1.  Causal Interactions Within a Frontal-Cingulate-Parietal Network During Cognitive Control: Convergent Evidence from a Multisite-Multitask Investigation.

Authors:  Weidong Cai; Tianwen Chen; Srikanth Ryali; John Kochalka; Chiang-Shan R Li; Vinod Menon
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2015-03-15       Impact factor: 5.357

2.  Perceptual Surprise Improves Action Stopping by Nonselectively Suppressing Motor Activity via a Neural Mechanism for Motor Inhibition.

Authors:  Isabella C Dutra; Darcy A Waller; Jan R Wessel
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Sensorimotor-independent prefrontal activity during response inhibition.

Authors:  Weidong Cai; Christopher J Cannistraci; John C Gore; Hoi-Chung Leung
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2013-06-25       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 4.  Neurobehavioral maturation of motor response inhibition in adolescence - A narrative review.

Authors:  Hannah Weiss; Monica Luciana
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2022-03-30       Impact factor: 9.052

5.  Neural Architecture of Selective Stopping Strategies: Distinct Brain Activity Patterns Are Associated with Attentional Capture But Not with Outright Stopping.

Authors:  Alexandra Sebastian; Kora Rössler; Michael Wibral; Arian Mobascher; Klaus Lieb; Patrick Jung; Oliver Tüscher
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2017-09-08       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  The Specificity of Inhibitory Control Deficits in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: A Dissociation Between the Speed and Reliability of Stopping.

Authors:  Diane Swick; Victoria Ashley
Journal:  J Anxiety Disord       Date:  2020-08-01

7.  Baseline brain function in the preadolescents of the ABCD Study.

Authors:  B Chaarani; S Hahn; N Allgaier; S Adise; M M Owens; A C Juliano; D K Yuan; H Loso; A Ivanciu; M D Albaugh; J Dumas; S Mackey; J Laurent; M Ivanova; D J Hagler; M D Cornejo; S Hatton; A Agrawal; L Aguinaldo; L Ahonen; W Aklin; A P Anokhin; J Arroyo; S Avenevoli; D Babcock; K Bagot; F C Baker; M T Banich; D M Barch; H Bartsch; A Baskin-Sommers; J M Bjork; D Blachman-Demner; M Bloch; R Bogdan; S Y Bookheimer; F Breslin; S Brown; F J Calabro; V Calhoun; B J Casey; L Chang; D B Clark; C Cloak; R T Constable; K Constable; R Corley; L B Cottler; S Coxe; R K Dagher; A M Dale; M Dapretto; R Delcarmen-Wiggins; A S Dick; E K Do; N U F Dosenbach; G J Dowling; S Edwards; T M Ernst; D A Fair; C C Fan; E Feczko; S W Feldstein-Ewing; P Florsheim; J J Foxe; E G Freedman; N P Friedman; S Friedman-Hill; B F Fuemmeler; A Galvan; D G Gee; J Giedd; M Glantz; P Glaser; J Godino; M Gonzalez; R Gonzalez; S Grant; K M Gray; F Haist; M P Harms; S Hawes; A C Heath; S Heeringa; M M Heitzeg; R Hermosillo; M M Herting; J M Hettema; J K Hewitt; C Heyser; E Hoffman; K Howlett; R S Huber; M A Huestis; L W Hyde; W G Iacono; M A Infante; O Irfanoglu; A Isaiah; S Iyengar; J Jacobus; R James; B Jean-Francois; T Jernigan; N R Karcher; A Kaufman; B Kelley; B Kit; A Ksinan; J Kuperman; A R Laird; C Larson; K LeBlanc; C Lessov-Schlagger; N Lever; D A Lewis; K Lisdahl; A R Little; M Lopez; M Luciana; B Luna; P A Madden; H H Maes; C Makowski; A T Marshall; M J Mason; J Matochik; B D McCandliss; E McGlade; I Montoya; G Morgan; A Morris; C Mulford; P Murray; B J Nagel; M C Neale; G Neigh; A Nencka; A Noronha; S J Nixon; C E Palmer; V Pariyadath; M P Paulus; W E Pelham; D Pfefferbaum; C Pierpaoli; A Prescot; D Prouty; L I Puttler; N Rajapaske; K M Rapuano; G Reeves; P F Renshaw; M C Riedel; P Rojas; M de la Rosa; M D Rosenberg; M J Ross; M Sanchez; C Schirda; D Schloesser; J Schulenberg; K J Sher; C Sheth; P D Shilling; W K Simmons; E R Sowell; N Speer; M Spittel; L M Squeglia; C Sripada; J Steinberg; C Striley; M T Sutherland; J Tanabe; S F Tapert; W Thompson; R L Tomko; K A Uban; S Vrieze; N E Wade; R Watts; S Weiss; B A Wiens; O D Williams; A Wilbur; D Wing; D Wolff-Hughes; R Yang; D A Yurgelun-Todd; R A Zucker; A Potter; H P Garavan
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 24.884

8.  Reward prospect rapidly speeds up response inhibition via reactive control.

Authors:  Carsten N Boehler; Hanne Schevernels; Jens-Max Hopf; Christian M Stoppel; Ruth M Krebs
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.526

9.  Selection and stopping in voluntary action: a meta-analysis and combined fMRI study.

Authors:  Charlotte L Rae; Laura E Hughes; Chelan Weaver; Michael C Anderson; James B Rowe
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-10-12       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Fictitious inhibitory differences: how skewness and slowing distort the estimation of stopping latencies.

Authors:  Frederick Verbruggen; Christopher D Chambers; Gordon D Logan
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2013-02-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.