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

The inhibition of prepotent responses is a requirement for goal‐directed behavior and several factors determine corresponding successful response inhibition processes. One factor relates to the degree of automaticity of pre‐potent response tendencies and another factor relates to the degree of cognitive control that is exerted during response inhibition. However, both factors can conjointly modulate inhibitory control. Cognitive theoretical concepts suggest that codings of stimulus‐response translations may underlie such conjoint effects. Yet, it is unclear in how far such specific codes, as assumed in cognitive psychological concepts, are evident in neurophysiological processes and whether there are specific functional neuroanatomical structures associated with the processing of such codes. Applying a temporal decomposition method of EEG data in combination with source localization methods we show that there are different, intermingled codes (i.e., “stimulus codes” and “response selection codes”) at the neurophysiological level during conjoint effects of “automatic” and “controlled” processes in response inhibition. Importantly, only “response selection codes” predict behavioral performance, and are subject to conjoint modulations by “automatic” and “controlled” processes. These modulations are associated with inferior and superior parietal areas (BA40/BA7), possibly reflecting an updating of internal representations when information is complex and probably difficult to categorize, but essential for behavioral control. Codes proposed by cognitive, psychological concepts seem to have a neurophysiological analogue that fits into current views on functions of inferior and superior parietal regions.

[1]  S. Gau,et al.  Neural correlates of inhibitory control and visual processing in youths with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a counting Stroop functional MRI study , 2014, Psychological Medicine.

[2]  Yu. E. Shelepin,et al.  Localization of human cortical areas activated on perception of ordered and chaotic images , 2008, Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology.

[3]  W. Sommer,et al.  Residue iteration decomposition (RIDE): A new method to separate ERP components on the basis of latency variability in single trials. , 2011, Psychophysiology.

[4]  Christian Beste,et al.  The norepinephrine system shows information-content specific properties during cognitive control – Evidence from EEG and pupillary responses , 2017, NeuroImage.

[5]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Stimulus modality, perceptual overlap, and the go/no-go N2. , 2004, Psychophysiology.

[6]  C. Beste,et al.  Psychophysiological mechanisms of interindividual differences in goal activation modes during action cascading. , 2014, Cerebral cortex.

[7]  G. Logan,et al.  On the ability to inhibit thought and action: general and special theories of an act of control. , 2014, Psychological review.

[8]  Jonathan R. Folstein,et al.  Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: a review. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[9]  Christian Beste,et al.  Interacting sources of interference during sensorimotor integration processes , 2016, NeuroImage.

[10]  C. Beste,et al.  A causal role of the right inferior frontal cortex in implementing strategies for multi-component behaviour , 2015, Nature Communications.

[11]  Christian Beste,et al.  Testing interactive effects of automatic and conflict control processes during response inhibition – A system neurophysiological study , 2017, NeuroImage.

[12]  E. Wagenmakers.  A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[13]  P L Nunez,et al.  The Spline‐Laplacian in Clinical Neurophysiology: A Method to Improve EEG Spatial Resolution , 1991, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[14]  Werner Sommer,et al.  Updating and validating a new framework for restoring and analyzing latency-variable ERP components from single trials with residue iteration decomposition (RIDE). , 2015, Psychophysiology.

[15]  D. Tucker,et al.  EEG coherency. I: Statistics, reference electrode, volume conduction, Laplacians, cortical imaging, and interpretation at multiple scales. , 1997, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[16]  C. Beste,et al.  Distinguishing stimulus and response codes in theta oscillations in prefrontal areas during inhibitory control of automated responses , 2017, Human brain mapping.

[17]  Christian Beste,et al.  Neuronal Intra-Individual Variability Masks Response Selection Differences between ADHD Subtypes—A Need to Change Perspectives , 2017, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[18]  Stewart H. Mostofsky,et al.  Response Inhibition and Response Selection: Two Sides of the Same Coin , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[19]  Werner Sommer,et al.  A toolbox for residue iteration decomposition (RIDE)—A method for the decomposition, reconstruction, and single trial analysis of event related potentials , 2015, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[20]  A. Aron.  The Neural Basis of Inhibition in Cognitive Control , 2007, The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry.

[21]  Andrea Hildebrandt,et al.  Exploiting the intra-subject latency variability from single-trial event-related potentials in the P3 time range: A review and comparative evaluation of methods , 2017, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[22]  Rolf Verleger,et al.  Testing the stimulus-to-response bridging function of the oddball-P3 by delayed response signals and residue iteration decomposition (RIDE) , 2014, NeuroImage.

[23]  O. Wilhelm,et al.  Individual differences in response conflict adaptations , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[24]  T. Robbins,et al.  Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex: one decade on , 2014, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[25]  C. Carter,et al.  The anterior cingulate as a conflict monitor: fMRI and ERP studies , 2002, Physiology & Behavior.

[26]  Josep Marco-Pallarés,et al.  Combined ICA-LORETA analysis of mismatch negativity , 2005, NeuroImage.

[27]  Christian Beste,et al.  On the effects of multimodal information integration in multitasking , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[28]  Matthew F. S. Rushworth,et al.  Attention systems and the organization of the human parietal cortex , 2001, NeuroImage.

[29]  William S Helton,et al.  Impulsive responding and the sustained attention to response task , 2009, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[30]  Michael E J Masson,et al.  A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing , 2011, Behavior research methods.

[31]  C. N. Boehler,et al.  Sensory MEG responses predict successful and failed inhibition in a stop-signal task. , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

[32]  Christian Beste,et al.  Response mode-dependent differences in neurofunctional networks during response inhibition: an EEG-beamforming study , 2016, Brain Structure and Function.

[33]  Kensuke Sekihara,et al.  Localization bias and spatial resolution of adaptive and non-adaptive spatial filters for MEG source reconstruction , 2005, NeuroImage.

[34]  A. Osman,et al.  Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy. , 1990, Psychological review.

[35]  Sachiko Koyama,et al.  Comprehension of degraded speech sounds with m-sequence modulation: An fMRI study , 2010, NeuroImage.

[36]  M. Matousek,et al.  Standardized low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA) in the prediction of response to cholinesterase inhibitors in patients with Alzheimer's disease , 2008 .

[37]  C. Beste,et al.  Action control processes in autism spectrum disorder – Insights from a neurobiological and neuroanatomical perspective , 2015, Progress in Neurobiology.

[38]  K. R. Ridderinkhof,et al.  Neurocognitive mechanisms of cognitive control: The role of prefrontal cortex in action selection, response inhibition, performance monitoring, and reward-based learning , 2004, Brain and Cognition.

[39]  G. Band,et al.  Speed-accuracy modulation in case of conflict: the roles of activation and inhibition , 2003, Psychological research.

[40]  Onur Güntürkün,et al.  Lateralized neural mechanisms underlying the modulation of response inhibition processes , 2011, NeuroImage.

[41]  E. Lauber,et al.  Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[42]  Christian Beste,et al.  Neural mechanisms and functional neuroanatomical networks during memory and cue-based task switching as revealed by residue iteration decomposition (RIDE) based source localization , 2017, Brain Structure and Function.

[43]  G. Logan,et al.  On the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time responses: a model and a method. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[44]  Joy J. Geng,et al.  Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Review Re-evaluating the Role of Tpj in Attentional Control: Contextual Updating? , 2022 .

[45]  Gordon D Logan,et al.  Horse-race model simulations of the stop-signal procedure. , 2003, Acta psychologica.

[46]  B. Hommel.  The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

[47]  Werner Sommer,et al.  Overcoming limitations of the ERP method with Residue Iteration Decomposition (RIDE): a demonstration in go/no-go experiments. , 2013, Psychophysiology.

[48]  Sami Schiff,et al.  Timing Spatial Conflict within the Parietal Cortex: A TMS Study , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[49]  J. Hohnsbein,et al.  ERP components in Go/Nogo tasks and their relation to inhibition. , 1999, Acta psychologica.

[50]  M. Kane,et al.  Conducting the train of thought: working memory capacity, goal neglect, and mind wandering in an executive-control task. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[51]  T. Robbins,et al.  Inhibition and impulsivity: Behavioral and neural basis of response control , 2013, Progress in Neurobiology.

[52]  C. Beste,et al.  Concurrent information affects response inhibition processes via the modulation of theta oscillations in cognitive control networks , 2015, Brain Structure and Function.

[53]  Brian S. Caffo,et al.  Developmental changes in within- and between-network connectivity between late childhood and adulthood , 2013, Neuropsychologia.

[54]  Vince D. Calhoun,et al.  Group-level component analyses of EEG: validation and evaluation , 2015, Front. Neurosci..

[55]  C. Beste,et al.  Perceptual conflict during sensorimotor integration processes - a neurophysiological study in response inhibition , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[56]  Geert J. M. van Boxtel,et al.  The N2 in go/no-go tasks reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition , 2004, Brain and Cognition.

[57]  R D Pascual-Marqui,et al.  Standardized low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA): technical details. , 2002, Methods and findings in experimental and clinical pharmacology.

[58]  R. Verleger,et al.  Effects on P3 of spreading targets and response prompts apart , 2017, Biological Psychology.