» Articles » PMID: 28045223

On the Dependence of Response Inhibition Processes on Sensory Modality

Overview
Journal Hum Brain Mapp
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Neurology
Date 2017 Jan 4
PMID 28045223
Citations 21
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The ability to inhibit responses is a central sensorimotor function but only recently the importance of sensory processes for motor inhibition mechanisms went more into the research focus. In this regard it is elusive, whether there are differences between sensory modalities to trigger response inhibition processes. Due to functional neuroanatomical considerations strong differences may exist, for example, between the visual and the tactile modality. In the current study we examine what neurophysiological mechanisms as well as functional neuroanatomical networks are modulated during response inhibition. Therefore, a Go/NoGo-paradigm employing a novel combination of visual, tactile, and visuotactile stimuli was used. The data show that the tactile modality is more powerful than the visual modality to trigger response inhibition processes. However, the tactile modality loses its efficacy to trigger response inhibition processes when being combined with the visual modality. This may be due to competitive mechanisms leading to a suppression of certain sensory stimuli and the response selection level. Variations in sensory modalities specifically affected conflict monitoring processes during response inhibition by modulating activity in a frontal parietal network including the right inferior frontal gyrus, anterior cingulate cortex and the temporoparietal junction. Attentional selection processes are not modulated. The results suggest that the functional neuroanatomical networks involved in response inhibition critically depends on the nature of the sensory input. Hum Brain Mapp 38:1941-1951, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Citing Articles

Cross-Modal Transfer Effects of the Go/No-Go Training With Visual Stimuli.

Hori M, Kojima S, Onishi H Brain Behav. 2025; 15(2):e70309.

PMID: 39924966 PMC: 11808185. DOI: 10.1002/brb3.70309.


Cortical oscillations and event-related brain potentials during the preparation and execution of deceptive behavior.

Schnuerch R, Schmuck J, Gibbons H Psychophysiology. 2024; 61(12):e14695.

PMID: 39342454 PMC: 11579241. DOI: 10.1111/psyp.14695.


Alpha and theta band activity share information relevant to proactive and reactive control during conflict-modulated response inhibition.

Pscherer C, Wendiggensen P, Muckschel M, Bluschke A, Beste C Hum Brain Mapp. 2023; 44(17):5936-5952.

PMID: 37728249 PMC: 10619371. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.26486.


Action Postponing and Restraint Varies among Sensory Modalities.

Ikarashi K, Sato D, Ochi G, Fujimoto T, Yamashiro K Brain Sci. 2022; 12(11).

PMID: 36421854 PMC: 9688532. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12111530.


Cognitive science theory-driven pharmacology elucidates the neurobiological basis of perception-motor integration.

Eggert E, Prochnow A, Roessner V, Frings C, Munchau A, Muckschel M Commun Biol. 2022; 5(1):919.

PMID: 36068298 PMC: 9448745. DOI: 10.1038/s42003-022-03864-1.


References
1.
Nieuwenhuis S, Yeung N, Cohen J . Stimulus modality, perceptual overlap, and the go/no-go N2. Psychophysiology. 2003; 41(1):157-60. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-8986.2003.00128.x. View

2.
Miller J, Kuhlwein E, Ulrich R . Effects of redundant visual stimuli on temporal order judgments. Percept Psychophys. 2004; 66(4):563-73. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194901. View

3.
Bonnefond A, Doignon-Camus N, Touzalin-Chretien P, Dufour A . Vigilance and intrinsic maintenance of alert state: An ERP study. Behav Brain Res. 2010; 211(2):185-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2010.03.030. View

4.
Diamond A . Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2012; 64:135-68. PMC: 4084861. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750. View

5.
Redgrave P, Coizet V, Comoli E, McHaffie J, Leriche M, Vautrelle N . Interactions between the Midbrain Superior Colliculus and the Basal Ganglia. Front Neuroanat. 2010; 4. PMC: 2952460. DOI: 10.3389/fnana.2010.00132. View