» Articles » PMID: 21179583

To Head or to Heed? Beyond the Surface of Selective Action Inhibition: a Review

Overview
Specialty Neurology
Date 2010 Dec 24
PMID 21179583
Citations 83
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

To head rather than heed to temptations is easier said than done. Since tempting actions are often contextually inappropriate, selective suppression is invoked to inhibit such actions. Thus far, laboratory tasks have not been very successful in highlighting these processes. We suggest that this is for three reasons. First, it is important to dissociate between an early susceptibility to making stimulus-driven impulsive but erroneous actions, and the subsequent selective suppression of these impulses that facilitates the selection of the correct action. Second, studies have focused on mean or median reaction times (RT), which conceals the temporal dynamics of action control. Third, studies have focused on group means, while considering individual differences as a source of error variance. Here, we present an overview of recent behavioral and imaging studies that overcame these limitations by analyzing RT distributions. As will become clear, this approach has revealed variations in inhibitory control over impulsive actions as a function of task instructions, conflict probability, and between-trial adjustments (following conflict or following an error trial) that are hidden if mean RTs are analyzed. Next, we discuss a selection of behavioral as well as imaging studies to illustrate that individual differences are meaningful and help understand selective suppression during action selection within samples of young and healthy individuals, but also within clinical samples of patients diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder or Parkinson's disease.

Citing Articles

Dissociating premotor and motor components of response times: Evidence of independent decisional effects during motor-response execution.

Kamari Songhorabadi S, Sulpizio S, Scaltritti M Psychon Bull Rev. 2025; .

PMID: 40055247 DOI: 10.3758/s13423-025-02663-z.


An image-computable model of speeded decision-making.

Jaffe P, Santiago-Reyes G, Schafer R, Bissett P, Poldrack R Elife. 2025; 13.

PMID: 40019474 PMC: 11870652. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.98351.


Neural dynamics of proactive and reactive cognitive control in medial and lateral prefrontal cortex.

Khan A, Hoy C, Anderson K, Piai V, KingStephens D, Stephens D bioRxiv. 2025; .

PMID: 39990315 PMC: 11844492. DOI: 10.1101/2025.02.12.637987.


Distractor-specific control adaptation in multidimensional environments.

Gheza D, Kool W Nat Hum Behav. 2025; .

PMID: 39753748 DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-02088-z.


Humans actively reconfigure neural task states.

Ritz H, Jha A, Pillow J, Daw N, Cohen J bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39416099 PMC: 11482766. DOI: 10.1101/2024.09.29.615736.


References
1.
Stins J, Polderman J, Boomsma D, de Geus E . Conditional accuracy in response interference tasks: Evidence from the Eriksen flanker task and the spatial conflict task. Adv Cogn Psychol. 2010; 3(3):409-17. PMC: 2864991. DOI: 10.2478/v10053-008-0005-4. View

2.
Juncos-Rabadan O, Pereiro A, Facal D . Cognitive interference and aging: insights from a spatial stimulus-response consistency task. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2007; 127(2):237-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.05.003. View

3.
Wylie S, Ridderinkhof K, Elias W, Frysinger R, Bashore T, Downs K . Subthalamic nucleus stimulation influences expression and suppression of impulsive behaviour in Parkinson's disease. Brain. 2010; 133(Pt 12):3611-24. PMC: 2995881. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awq239. View

4.
de Jong R, Liang C, Lauber E . Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1994; 20(4):731-50. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.20.4.731. View

5.
Ridderinkhof K, van den Wildenberg W, Segalowitz S, Carter C . Neurocognitive mechanisms of cognitive control: the role of prefrontal cortex in action selection, response inhibition, performance monitoring, and reward-based learning. Brain Cogn. 2004; 56(2):129-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2004.09.016. View