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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |