Literature DB >> 28390090

Prepotent motor activity and inhibitory control demands in different variants of the go/no-go paradigm.

Jan R Wessel1,2.   

Abstract

Inhibitory control enables humans to stop prepotent motor activity, and is commonly studied using go/no-go or stop-signal tasks. In stop-signal tasks, prepotent motor activity is elicited by delaying stop signals relative to go signals. In go/no-go tasks, however, trials include only one signal-go or no-go. Hence, prepotent motor activity has to be ensured differently-for example, by using rare no-go trials and short trial durations. However, a literature survey shows that ∼40% of studies use equiprobable go/no-go trials and ∼20% use long stimulus-stimulus intervals (> 4 s). It is unclear whether such slow-paced, equiprobable go/no-go tasks elicit prepotent motor activity and probe inhibitory control. We recorded EEG during four go/no-go tasks, varying in no-go probability and trial duration. We quantified prepotent motor activity on successfully inhibited no-go trials using the lateralized readiness potential. Only fast-paced go/no-go tasks with rare no-go trials reliably evoked such activity. We then used a stop-signal task and independent component analysis to isolate an established neural signature of inhibitory control, and investigated this signature's activity across the go/no-go tasks. Across tasks, increased prepotent motor activity on individual no-go trials was accompanied by greater frontocentral P3 amplitudes, confirming it as an index of inhibition. Crucially, this inhibition-related activity showed a 75% reduction in slow-paced, equiprobable go/no-go tasks compared to fast-paced, rare no-go versions. Therefore, since many common go/no-go task configurations do not reliably evoke prepotent motor activity, their inhibitory requirements are greatly reduced. This has major implications for the usage of go/no-go tasks in psychological experiments.
© 2017 Society for Psychophysiological Research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ERPs; P300; go/no-go; inhibitory control; stop-signal task

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28390090     DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12871

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychophysiology        ISSN: 0048-5772            Impact factor:   4.016


  48 in total

1.  Individual differences in intracortical inhibition predict motor-inhibitory performance.

Authors:  Jason L He; I Fuelscher; J Coxon; N Chowdhury; Wei-Peng Teo; P Barhoun; P Enticott; C Hyde
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2019-08-17       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Neural oscillatory dynamics of inhibitory control in young adult binge drinkers.

Authors:  Lee A Holcomb; Siyuan Huang; Stephen M Cruz; Ksenija Marinkovic
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 3.251

3.  Task manipulation effects on the relationship between working memory and go/no-go task performance.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Wiemers; Thomas S Redick
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2019-03-29

4.  Distress intolerance modulation of neurophysiological markers of cognitive control during a complex go/no-go task.

Authors:  Richard J Macatee; Brian J Albanese; Kevin Clancy; Nicholas P Allan; Edward M Bernat; Jesse R Cougle; Norman B Schmidt
Journal:  J Abnorm Psychol       Date:  2018-01

5.  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

6.  β-Bursts Reveal the Trial-to-Trial Dynamics of Movement Initiation and Cancellation.

Authors:  Jan R Wessel
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Motor Interference, But Not Sensory Interference, Increases Midfrontal Theta Activity and Brain Synchronization during Reactive Control.

Authors:  Jakob Kaiser; Simone Schütz-Bosbach
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Distinct neural circuits support incentivized inhibition.

Authors:  Josiah K Leong; Kelly H MacNiven; Gregory R Samanez-Larkin; Brian Knutson
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 6.556

9.  Emotionally valenced stimuli impact response inhibition in those with substance use disorder and co-occurring anxiety and depression symptoms.

Authors:  Alison C Legrand; Matthew Price
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 4.839

10.  Online Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Protocol for Measuring Cortical Physiology Associated with Response Inhibition.

Authors:  Michael D Guthrie; Donald L Gilbert; David A Huddleston; Ernest V Pedapati; Paul S Horn; Stewart H Mostofsky; Steve W Wu
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2018-02-08       Impact factor: 1.355

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.