Motor Preparation Disrupts Proactive Control in the Stop Signal Task

In a study of the stop signal task (SST) we employed Bayesian modeling to compute the estimated likelihood of stop signal or P(Stop) trial by trial and identified regional processes of conflict anticipation and response slowing. A higher P(Stop) is associated with prolonged go trial reaction time (g...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Wuyi Wang, Sien Hu, Jaime S. Ide, Simon Zhornitsky, Sheng Zhang, Angela J. Yu, Chiang-shan R. Li
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-05-01
Series:Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00151/full
_version_ 1818109406301126656
author Wuyi Wang
Sien Hu
Sien Hu
Jaime S. Ide
Simon Zhornitsky
Sheng Zhang
Angela J. Yu
Chiang-shan R. Li
Chiang-shan R. Li
Chiang-shan R. Li
author_facet Wuyi Wang
Sien Hu
Sien Hu
Jaime S. Ide
Simon Zhornitsky
Sheng Zhang
Angela J. Yu
Chiang-shan R. Li
Chiang-shan R. Li
Chiang-shan R. Li
author_sort Wuyi Wang
collection DOAJ
description In a study of the stop signal task (SST) we employed Bayesian modeling to compute the estimated likelihood of stop signal or P(Stop) trial by trial and identified regional processes of conflict anticipation and response slowing. A higher P(Stop) is associated with prolonged go trial reaction time (goRT)—a form of sequential effect—and reflects proactive control of motor response. However, some individuals do not demonstrate a sequential effect despite similar go and stop success (SS) rates. We posited that motor preparation may disrupt proactive control more in certain individuals than others. Specifically, the time interval between trial and go signal onset—the fore-period (FP)—varies across trials and a longer FP is associated with a higher level of motor preparation and shorter goRT. Greater motor preparatory activities may disrupt proactive control. To test this hypothesis, we compared brain activations and Granger causal connectivities of 81 adults who demonstrated a sequential effect (SEQ) and 35 who did not (nSEQ). SEQ and nSEQ did not differ in regional activations to conflict anticipation, motor preparation, goRT slowing or goRT speeding. In contrast, SEQ and nSEQ demonstrated different patterns of Granger causal connectivities. P(Stop) and FP activations shared reciprocal influence in SEQ but FP activities Granger caused P(Stop) activities unidirectionally in nSEQ, and FP activities Granger caused goRT speeding activities in nSEQ but not SEQ. These findings support the hypothesis that motor preparation disrupts proactive control in nSEQ and provide direct neural evidence for interactive go and stop processes.
first_indexed 2024-12-11T02:30:45Z
format Article
id doaj.art-616c51988a5c401082cec39c4d3100b3
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1662-5161
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-11T02:30:45Z
publishDate 2018-05-01
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format Article
series Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
spelling doaj.art-616c51988a5c401082cec39c4d3100b32022-12-22T01:23:50ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience1662-51612018-05-011210.3389/fnhum.2018.00151339225Motor Preparation Disrupts Proactive Control in the Stop Signal TaskWuyi Wang0Sien Hu1Sien Hu2Jaime S. Ide3Simon Zhornitsky4Sheng Zhang5Angela J. Yu6Chiang-shan R. Li7Chiang-shan R. Li8Chiang-shan R. Li9Department of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United StatesDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United StatesDepartment of Psychology, State University of New York, Oswego, NY, United StatesDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United StatesDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United StatesDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United StatesDepartment of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United StatesDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United StatesDepartment of Neuroscience, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United StatesInterdepartmental Neuroscience Program, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United StatesIn a study of the stop signal task (SST) we employed Bayesian modeling to compute the estimated likelihood of stop signal or P(Stop) trial by trial and identified regional processes of conflict anticipation and response slowing. A higher P(Stop) is associated with prolonged go trial reaction time (goRT)—a form of sequential effect—and reflects proactive control of motor response. However, some individuals do not demonstrate a sequential effect despite similar go and stop success (SS) rates. We posited that motor preparation may disrupt proactive control more in certain individuals than others. Specifically, the time interval between trial and go signal onset—the fore-period (FP)—varies across trials and a longer FP is associated with a higher level of motor preparation and shorter goRT. Greater motor preparatory activities may disrupt proactive control. To test this hypothesis, we compared brain activations and Granger causal connectivities of 81 adults who demonstrated a sequential effect (SEQ) and 35 who did not (nSEQ). SEQ and nSEQ did not differ in regional activations to conflict anticipation, motor preparation, goRT slowing or goRT speeding. In contrast, SEQ and nSEQ demonstrated different patterns of Granger causal connectivities. P(Stop) and FP activations shared reciprocal influence in SEQ but FP activities Granger caused P(Stop) activities unidirectionally in nSEQ, and FP activities Granger caused goRT speeding activities in nSEQ but not SEQ. These findings support the hypothesis that motor preparation disrupts proactive control in nSEQ and provide direct neural evidence for interactive go and stop processes.http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00151/fullcognitive controlpost-error slowingpost-signal slowingmotor urgencymotor readiness
spellingShingle Wuyi Wang
Sien Hu
Sien Hu
Jaime S. Ide
Simon Zhornitsky
Sheng Zhang
Angela J. Yu
Chiang-shan R. Li
Chiang-shan R. Li
Chiang-shan R. Li
Motor Preparation Disrupts Proactive Control in the Stop Signal Task
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
cognitive control
post-error slowing
post-signal slowing
motor urgency
motor readiness
title Motor Preparation Disrupts Proactive Control in the Stop Signal Task
title_full Motor Preparation Disrupts Proactive Control in the Stop Signal Task
title_fullStr Motor Preparation Disrupts Proactive Control in the Stop Signal Task
title_full_unstemmed Motor Preparation Disrupts Proactive Control in the Stop Signal Task
title_short Motor Preparation Disrupts Proactive Control in the Stop Signal Task
title_sort motor preparation disrupts proactive control in the stop signal task
topic cognitive control
post-error slowing
post-signal slowing
motor urgency
motor readiness
url http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00151/full
work_keys_str_mv AT wuyiwang motorpreparationdisruptsproactivecontrolinthestopsignaltask
AT sienhu motorpreparationdisruptsproactivecontrolinthestopsignaltask
AT sienhu motorpreparationdisruptsproactivecontrolinthestopsignaltask
AT jaimeside motorpreparationdisruptsproactivecontrolinthestopsignaltask
AT simonzhornitsky motorpreparationdisruptsproactivecontrolinthestopsignaltask
AT shengzhang motorpreparationdisruptsproactivecontrolinthestopsignaltask
AT angelajyu motorpreparationdisruptsproactivecontrolinthestopsignaltask
AT chiangshanrli motorpreparationdisruptsproactivecontrolinthestopsignaltask
AT chiangshanrli motorpreparationdisruptsproactivecontrolinthestopsignaltask
AT chiangshanrli motorpreparationdisruptsproactivecontrolinthestopsignaltask