Literature DB >> 22288696

Inhibitory effects on response force in the stop-signal paradigm.

Yao-Ting Ko1, Toni Alsford, Jeff Miller.   

Abstract

The forcefulness of key press responses was measured in stop-all and selective stopping versions of the stop-signal paradigm. When stop signals were presented too late for participants to succeed in stopping their responses, response force was nonetheless reduced relative to trials in which no stop signal was presented. This effect shows that peripheral motor aspects of primary task responses can still be influenced by inhibition even when the stop signal arrives too late to prevent the response. It thus requires modification of race models in which responses in the presence of stop signals are either stopped completely or produced normally, depending on whether the responding or stopping process finishes first.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22288696     DOI: 10.1037/a0027034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  10 in total

1.  A common control signal and a ballistic stage can explain the control of coordinated eye-hand movements.

Authors:  Atul Gopal; Aditya Murthy
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Go-activation endures following the presentation of a stop-signal: evidence from startle.

Authors:  Neil M Drummond; Erin K Cressman; Anthony N Carlsen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-11-02       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 3.  The point of no return: A fundamental limit on the ability to control thought and action.

Authors:  Gordon D Logan
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 2.143

4.  Voluntarily-generated unimanual preparation is associated with stopping success: evidence from LRP and lateralized mu ERD before the stop signal.

Authors:  Yao-Ting Ko; Shih-Kuen Cheng; Chi-Hung Juan
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2014-04-10

5.  Response abilities of children with Down Syndrome and other intellectual developmental disorders.

Authors:  Pratiksha Tilak Rao; Vasudeva Guddattu; John Michael Solomon
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Effect of foreknowledge on neural activity of primary "go" responses relates to response stopping and switching.

Authors:  Benjamin Xu; Sarah Levy; John Butman; Dzung Pham; Leonardo G Cohen; Marco Sandrini
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 3.169

7.  An Activation Threshold Model for Response Inhibition.

Authors:  Hayley J MacDonald; Angus J C McMorland; Cathy M Stinear; James P Coxon; Winston D Byblow
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-01-13       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Dynamical EEG Indices of Progressive Motor Inhibition and Error-Monitoring.

Authors:  Trung Van Nguyen; Prasad Balachandran; Neil G Muggleton; Wei-Kuang Liang; Chi-Hung Juan
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2021-04-09

9.  To Go or Not to Go: Degrees of Dynamic Inhibitory Control Revealed by the Function of Grip Force and Early Electrophysiological Indices.

Authors:  Trung Van Nguyen; Che-Yi Hsu; Satish Jaiswal; Neil G Muggleton; Wei-Kuang Liang; Chi-Hung Juan
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Is transcranial direct current stimulation a potential method for improving response inhibition?

Authors:  Yong Hyun Kwon; Jung Won Kwon
Journal:  Neural Regen Res       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 5.135

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.