Stop before you leap: changing eye and hand movements requires stopping.

The search-step paradigm addresses the processes involved in changing movement plans, usually saccadic eye-movements. Subjects move their eyes to a target (T1) among distractors, but when the target steps to a new location (T2), subjects are instructed to move their eyes directly from fixation to the new location. We ask whether moving to T2 requires a separate stop process that inhibits the movement to T1. It need not. The movement plan for the second response may inhibit the first response. To distinguish these hypotheses, we decoupled the offset of T1 from the onset of T2. If the second movement is sufficient to inhibit the first, then the probability of responding to T1 should depend only on T2 onset. If a separate stop process is required, then the probability of responding to T1 should depend only on T1 offset, which acts as a stop signal. We tested these hypotheses in manual and saccadic search-step tasks and found that the probability of responding to T1 depended most strongly on T1 offset, supporting the hypothesis that changing from one movement plan to another involves a separate stop process that inhibits the first plan.

[1]  Aditya Murthy,et al.  Neural control of visual search by frontal eye field: effects of unexpected target displacement on visual selection and saccade preparation. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[2]  Y. Miyashita,et al.  Preparation to Inhibit a Response Complements Response Inhibition during Performance of a Stop-Signal Task , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[3]  Frederick Verbruggen,et al.  How to Stop and Change a Response: the Role of Goal Activation in Multitasking , 2022 .

[4]  Patrick G. Bissett,et al.  Balancing Cognitive Demands: Control Adjustments in the Stop-signal Paradigm Stop-signal Paradigm Post-stop-signal Slowing , 2011 .

[5]  Aditya Murthy,et al.  Understanding How the Brain Changes Its Mind: Microstimulation in the Macaque Frontal Eye Field Reveals How Saccade Plans Are Changed , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[6]  M. Bellgrove,et al.  Insights into the neural basis of response inhibition from cognitive and clinical neuroscience , 2009, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[7]  G. Logan,et al.  Proactive adjustments of response strategies in the stop-signal paradigm. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  G. D. Logan,et al.  Dynamics of saccade target selection: Race model analysis of double step and search step saccade production in human and macaque , 2007, Vision Research.

[9]  Michael A. DiSano,et al.  Intracranial EEG Reveals a Time- and Frequency-Specific Role for the Right Inferior Frontal Gyrus and Primary Motor Cortex in Stopping Initiated Responses , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[10]  Winston D. Byblow,et al.  Primary motor cortex and movement prevention: Where Stop meets Go , 2009, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[11]  R. Kahn,et al.  Function of striatum beyond inhibition and execution of motor responses , 2005, Human brain mapping.

[12]  J. Schall,et al.  Executive control of countermanding saccades by the supplementary eye field , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[13]  G. Logan.  On the ability to inhibit thought and action , 1984 .

[14]  W. Becker,et al.  An analysis of the saccadic system by means of double step stimuli , 1979, Vision Research.

[15]  Timothy Edward John Behrens,et al.  Triangulating a Cognitive Control Network Using Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Functional MRI , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[16]  Maneesh C. Patel,et al.  Distinct frontal systems for response inhibition, attentional capture, and error processing , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  J D Schall,et al.  Dynamic dissociation of visual selection from saccade programming in frontal eye field. , 2001, Journal of neurophysiology.

[18]  J. Schall,et al.  Countermanding saccades in macaque , 1995, Visual Neuroscience.

[19]  T. Robbins,et al.  Stop-signal inhibition disrupted by damage to right inferior frontal gyrus in humans , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[20]  A. Gotler,et al.  2 Dynamics of saccade target selection: Race model analysis of double , 2007 .

[21]  R. Poldrack,et al.  Cortical and Subcortical Contributions to Stop Signal Response Inhibition: Role of the Subthalamic Nucleus , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[22]  G. Logan,et al.  Inhibitory control in mind and brain: an interactive race model of countermanding saccades. , 2007, Psychological review.

[23]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  Dependence and independence in responding to double stimulation: A comparison of stop, change, and dual-task paradigms. , 1986 .