Paradox Resolved: Stop Signal Race Model With Negative Dependence

The ability to inhibit our responses voluntarily is an important case of cognitive control. The stop-signal paradigm is a popular tool to study response inhibition. Participants perform a response time task (go task), and occasionally, the go stimulus is followed by a stop signal after a variable delay, indicating subjects to withhold their response (stop task). The main interest of modeling is in estimating the unobservable stop-signal processing time, that is, the covert latency of the stopping process as a characterization of the response inhibition mechanism. In the independent race model, the stop-signal task is represented as a race between stochastically independent go and stop processes. Without making any specific distributional assumptions about the processing times, the model allows estimating the mean time to cancel a response. Neurophysiological studies on countermanding saccadic eye movements, however, have shown that the neural correlates of go and stop processes consist of networks of mutually interacting gaze-shifting and gaze-holding neurons. This poses a major challenge in formulating linking propositions between the behavioral and neural findings. Here we propose a dependent race model that postulates perfect negative stochastic dependence between go and stop activations. The model is consistent with the concept of interacting processes while retaining the simplicity and elegance of the distribution-free independent race model. For mean data, the dependent model’s predictions remain identical to those of the independent model. The resolution of this apparent paradox advances the understanding of mechanisms of response inhibition and paves the way for modeling more complex situations.

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

[2]  J. Schall,et al.  Role of frontal eye fields in countermanding saccades: visual, movement, and fixation activity. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[4]  Frederick Verbruggen,et al.  The Stop‐Signal Paradigm , 2018 .

[5]  D. P. Hanes,et al.  Controlled Movement Processing: Superior Colliculus Activity Associated with Countermanded Saccades , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[6]  Jeffrey D Schall,et al.  Models of inhibitory control , 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[7]  H. Joe Dependence Modeling with Copulas , 2014 .

[8]  G. Logan,et al.  Models of response inhibition in the stop-signal and stop-change paradigms , 2009, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[9]  Imran Noorani,et al.  Movement suppression: brain mechanisms for stopping and stillness , 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  James T. Townsend,et al.  Features of Response Times , 2015 .

[11]  R. Nelsen An Introduction to Copulas , 1998 .

[12]  Patrick G. Bissett,et al.  Selective stopping? Maybe not. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[13]  G. Logan,et al.  Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[14]  G. Logan,et al.  Inhibitory control in mind and brain 2.0: blocked-input models of saccadic countermanding. , 2015, Psychological review.

[15]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  Bayesian parametric estimation of stop-signal reaction time distributions. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[16]  Gordon D Logan,et al.  Taking control of cognition: An instance perspective on acts of control. , 2017, The American psychologist.

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

[18]  Chung-Chuan Lo,et al.  Proactive Inhibitory Control and Attractor Dynamics in Countermanding Action: A Spiking Neural Circuit Model , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[19]  Hans Colonius,et al.  A Note on the Stop-Signal Paradigm, or How to Observe the Unobservable , 1990 .

[20]  Joshua W. Brown,et al.  Relation of frontal eye field activity to saccade initiation during a countermanding task , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[22]  J. Schall,et al.  Current advances and pressing problems in studies of stopping , 2012, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[23]  J. Townsend Serial vs. Parallel Processing: Sometimes They Look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but they can (and Should) be Distinguished , 1990 .

[24]  J. Townsend,et al.  A theory of interactive parallel processing: new capacity measures and predictions for a response time inequality series. , 2004, Psychological review.

[25]  Simple Characterizations of Comonotonicity and Countermonotonicity by Extremal Correlations , 2006 .