Uncoupling response inhibition.

The ability to prevent unwanted movement is fundamental to human behavior. When healthy adults must prevent a subset of prepared actions, execution of the remaining response is markedly delayed. We hypothesized that the delay may be sensitive to the degree of similarity between the prevented and continued actions. Fifteen healthy participants performed an anticipatory response inhibition task that required bilateral index finger extension or thumb abduction with homogeneous digit pairings, or a heterogeneous pairing of a combination of the two movements. We expected that the uncoupling of responses required for selective movement prevention would be more difficult with homogeneous (same digit, homologous muscles) than heterogeneous pairings (different digits, nonhomologous muscles). Measures of response times (and asynchrony between digits) during action execution, stopping performance, and electromyography from EIP (index finger extension) and APB (thumb abduction) were analyzed. As expected, selective trials produced a delay in the remaining movement compared with execution trials. Successful performance in the selective condition occurred via suppression of the entire prepared response and subsequent selective reinitiation of the remaining component. Importantly, the delayed reinitiation of motor output was sensitive to the degree of similarity between responses, occurring later but at a faster rate with homogeneous digits. There were persistent aftereffects from the selective condition on the motor system, which indicated greater levels of inhibition and a higher gain were necessary to successfully perform selective trials with homogeneous pairings. Overall, the results support a model of inhibition of a unitary response and selective reinitiation, rather than selective inhibition.

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

[2]  R. Ivry,et al.  Callosotomy patients exhibit temporal uncoupling during continuous bimanual movements , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[3]  S. Swinnen,et al.  Conceptual binding: integrated visual cues reduce processing costs in bimanual movements. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[5]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[6]  J. Pekar,et al.  fMRI evidence that the neural basis of response inhibition is task-dependent. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[7]  M Hallett,et al.  Human corticospinal excitability evaluated with transcranial magnetic stimulation during different reaction time paradigms. , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[8]  W. Byblow,et al.  Selective inhibition of movement. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[9]  K. Kiehl,et al.  Event‐related fMRI study of response inhibition , 2001, Human brain mapping.

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

[11]  R. D. de Jong,et al.  Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  E. Stein,et al.  Right hemispheric dominance of inhibitory control: an event-related functional MRI study. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  W. Byblow,et al.  Impaired inhibition of a pre-planned response in focal hand dystonia , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[14]  Etienne Olivier,et al.  Short-Latency Influence of Medial Frontal Cortex on Primary Motor Cortex during Action Selection under Conflict , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[15]  M. Smyth Differing perspectives in motor learning, memory and control : D. Goodman, R. Wilberg and I. Franks (eds.) (Advances in Psychology series.) Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1985 , 1986 .

[16]  P. Hodges,et al.  A comparison of computer-based methods for the determination of onset of muscle contraction using electromyography. , 1996, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[17]  K. Newell Coordination, Control and Skill , 1985 .

[18]  W. Byblow,et al.  Intracortical inhibition during volitional inhibition of prepared action. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[20]  Naomi M. Kenner,et al.  Inhibitory Motor Control in Response Stopping and Response Switching , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[21]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Nonselective motor-level changes associated with selective response inhibition: evidence from response force measurements , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[22]  T. Robbins,et al.  Lesions of the medial prefrontal cortex or nucleus accumbens core do not impair inhibitory control in rats performing a stop-signal reaction time task , 2003, Behavioural Brain Research.

[23]  G D Logan,et al.  Strategies and mechanisms in nonselective and selective inhibitory motor control. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  Johannes J. Fahrenfort,et al.  Pre-SMA Gray-matter Density Predicts Individual Differences in Action Selection in the Face of Conscious and Unconscious Response Conflict , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[25]  Winston D. Byblow,et al.  Stop and Go: The Neural Basis of Selective Movement Prevention , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[26]  O. Hikosaka,et al.  Switching from automatic to controlled action by monkey medial frontal cortex , 2007, Nature Neuroscience.

[27]  Richard G. Carson,et al.  Manual asymmetries: old problems and new directions , 1993 .

[28]  A. Dove,et al.  Prefrontal cortex activation in task switching: an event-related fMRI study. , 2000, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[29]  Caitlin L. Oldenkamp,et al.  A Proactive Mechanism for Selective Suppression of Response Tendencies , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[30]  James W. Stinear,et al.  The subdominant hand increases the efficacy of voluntary alterations in bimanual coordination , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[32]  Katya Rubia,et al.  Right inferior prefrontal cortex mediates response inhibition while mesial prefrontal cortex is responsible for error detection , 2003, NeuroImage.

[33]  Hansjürgen Bratzke,et al.  Stages in the development of Parkinson’s disease-related pathology , 2004, Cell and Tissue Research.

[34]  A. Aron From Reactive to Proactive and Selective Control: Developing a Richer Model for Stopping Inappropriate Responses , 2011, Biological Psychiatry.

[35]  J. Kelso Phase transitions and critical behavior in human bimanual coordination. , 1984, The American journal of physiology.

[36]  Frederick Verbruggen,et al.  Having a goal to stop action is associated with advance control of specific motor representations , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

[37]  A. T. Slater-Hammel,et al.  Reliability, Accuracy, and Refractoriness of a Transit Reaction , 1960 .

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

[39]  M. Rieger,et al.  Inhibition of ongoing responses in patients with Parkinson’s disease , 2004, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.