» Articles » PMID: 33584231

To Go or Not to Go: Degrees of Dynamic Inhibitory Control Revealed by the Function of Grip Force and Early Electrophysiological Indices

Overview
Specialty Neurology
Date 2021 Feb 15
PMID 33584231
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

A critical issue in executive control is how the nervous system exerts flexibility to inhibit a prepotent response and adapt to sudden changes in the environment. In this study, force measurement was used to capture "partial" unsuccessful trials that are highly relevant in extending the current understanding of motor inhibition processing. Moreover, a modified version of the stop-signal task was used to control and eliminate potential attentional capture effects from the motor inhibition index. The results illustrate that the non-canceled force and force rate increased as a function of stop-signal delay (SSD), offering new objective indices for gauging the dynamic inhibitory process. Motor response (time and force) was a function of delay in the presentation of novel/infrequent stimuli. A larger lateralized readiness potential (LRP) amplitude in go and novel stimuli indicated an influence of the novel stimuli on central motor processing. Moreover, an early N1 component reflects an index of motor inhibition in addition to the N2 component reported in previous studies. Source analysis revealed that the activation of N2 originated from inhibitory control associated areas: the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG), pre-motor cortex, and primary motor cortex. Regarding partial responses, LRP and error-related negativity (ERNs) were associated with error correction processes, whereas the N2 component may indicate the functional overlap between inhibition and error correction. In sum, the present study has developed reliable and objective indices of motor inhibition by introducing force, force-rate and electrophysiological measures, further elucidating our understandings of dynamic motor inhibition and error correction.

Citing Articles

Neural mechanisms for executive control of speed-accuracy trade-off.

Reppert T, Heitz R, Schall J Cell Rep. 2023; 42(11):113422.

PMID: 37950871 PMC: 10833473. DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113422.


Effect of different sport environments on proactive and reactive motor inhibition: A study on open- and closed-skilled athletes mouse-tracking procedure.

Bravi R, Gavazzi G, Benedetti V, Giovannelli F, Grasso S, Panconi G Front Psychol. 2022; 13:1042705.

PMID: 36578693 PMC: 9791124. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1042705.


Dynamical EEG Indices of Progressive Motor Inhibition and Error-Monitoring.

Nguyen T, Balachandran P, Muggleton N, Liang W, Juan C Brain Sci. 2021; 11(4).

PMID: 33918711 PMC: 8070019. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11040478.

References
1.
Scangos K, Stuphorn V . Medial frontal cortex motivates but does not control movement initiation in the countermanding task. J Neurosci. 2010; 30(5):1968-82. PMC: 4041090. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4509-09.2010. View

2.
Enriquez-Geppert S, Konrad C, Pantev C, Huster R . Conflict and inhibition differentially affect the N200/P300 complex in a combined go/nogo and stop-signal task. Neuroimage. 2010; 51(2):877-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.043. View

3.
Ko Y, Alsford T, Miller J . Inhibitory effects on response force in the stop-signal paradigm. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2012; 38(2):465-77. DOI: 10.1037/a0027034. View

4.
Kok A, Ramautar J, de Ruiter M, Band G, Ridderinkhof K . ERP components associated with successful and unsuccessful stopping in a stop-signal task. Psychophysiology. 2003; 41(1):9-20. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-8986.2003.00127.x. View

5.
Manza P, Amandola M, Tatineni V, Li C, Leung H . Response inhibition in Parkinson's disease: a meta-analysis of dopaminergic medication and disease duration effects. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2017; 3:23. PMC: 5501877. DOI: 10.1038/s41531-017-0024-2. View