Failures to launch preclude response inhibition.

Neural analyses of response inhibition rely on separating trials with and without a behavioral response. Can researchers be sure the absence of a behavioral outcome equates to the presence of inhibitory control? We emphasize advancing response inhibition research by utilizing peripheral measures of response progress to define behavioral stopping contrasts.

A global pause generates nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping.

Selective response inhibition may be required when stopping a part of a multicomponent action. A persistent response delay (stopping-interference effect) indicates nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping. This study aimed to elucidate whether nonselective response inhibition is the consequence of a global pause process during attentional capture or specific to a nonselective cancel process during selective stopping. Twenty healthy human participants performed a bimanual anticipatory response inhibition paradigm with selective stop and ignore signals. Frontocentral and sensorimotor beta-bursts were recorded with electroencephalography. Corticomotor excitability and short-interval intracortical inhibition in primary motor cortex were recorded with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Behaviorally, responses in the non-signaled hand were delayed during selective ignore and stop trials. The response delay was largest during selective stop trials and indicated that stopping-interference could not be attributed entirely to attentional capture. A stimulus-nonselective increase in frontocentral beta-bursts occurred during stop and ignore trials. Sensorimotor response inhibition was reflected in maintenance of beta-bursts and short-interval intracortical inhibition relative to disinhibition observed during go trials. Response inhibition signatures were not associated with the magnitude of stopping-interference. Therefore, nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping results primarily from a nonselective pause process but does not entirely account for the stopping-interference effect.

Comparing anticipatory and stop-signal response inhibition with a novel, open-source selective stopping toolbox.

Response inhibition is essential for terminating inappropriate actions and, in some cases, may be required selectively. Selective stopping can be investigated with multicomponent anticipatory or stop-signal response inhibition paradigms. Here we provide a freely available open-source Selective Stopping Toolbox (SeleST) to investigate selective stopping using either anticipatory or stop-signal task variants. This study aimed to evaluate selective stopping between the anticipatory and stop-signal variants using SeleST and provide guidance to researchers for future use. Forty healthy human participants performed bimanual anticipatory response inhibition and stop-signal tasks in SeleST. Responses were more variable and slowed to a greater extent during the stop-signal than in the anticipatory paradigm. However, the stop-signal paradigm better conformed to the assumption of the independent race model of response inhibition. The expected response delay during selective stop trials was present in both variants. These findings indicate that selective stopping can successfully be investigated with either anticipatory or stop-signal paradigms in SeleST. We propose that the anticipatory paradigm should be used when strict control of response times is desired, while the stop-signal paradigm should be used when it is desired to estimate stop-signal reaction time with the independent race model. Importantly, the dual functionality of SeleST allows researchers flexibility in paradigm selection when investigating selective stopping.

Proactive Interhemispheric Disinhibition Supports Response Preparation during Selective Stopping.

Response inhibition is essential for terminating inappropriate actions. A substantial response delay may occur in the nonstopped effector when only part of a multieffector action is terminated. This stopping-interference effect has been attributed to nonselective response inhibition processes and can be reduced with proactive cuing. This study aimed to elucidate the role of interhemispheric primary motor cortex (M1-M1) influences during selective stopping with proactive cuing. We hypothesized that stopping-interference would be reduced as stopping certainty increased because of proactive recruitment of interhemispheric facilitation or inhibition when cued to respond or stop, respectively. Twenty-three healthy human participants of either sex performed a bimanual anticipatory response inhibition paradigm with cues signaling the likelihood of a stop-signal occurring. Dual-coil transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to determine corticomotor excitability (CME), interhemispheric inhibition (IHI), and interhemispheric facilitation (IHF) in the left hand at rest and during response preparation. Response times slowed and stopping-interference decreased with increased stopping certainty. Proactive response inhibition was marked by a reduced rate of rise and faster cancel time in electromyographical bursts during stopping. There was a nonselective release of IHI but not CME from rest to in-task response preparation, whereas IHF was not observed in either context. An effector-specific reduction in CME but no reinstatement of IHI was observed when the left hand was cued to stop. These findings indicate that stopping speed and selectivity are better with proactive cueing and that interhemispheric M1-M1 channels modulate inhibitory tone during response preparation to support going but not proactive response inhibition.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Response inhibition is essential for terminating inappropriate actions and, in some cases, may be required for only part of a multieffector action. The present study examined interhemispheric influences between the primary motor cortices during selective stopping with proactive cuing. Stopping selectivity was greater with increased stopping certainty and was marked by proactive adjustments to the hand cued to stop and hand cued to respond separately. Inhibitory interhemispheric influences were released during response preparation but were not directly involved in proactive response inhibition. These findings indicate that between-hand stopping can be selective with proactive cuing, but cue-related improvements are unlikely to reflect the advance engagement of interhemispheric influences between primary motor cortices.

Stopping Interference in Response Inhibition: Behavioral and Neural Signatures of Selective Stopping.

Response inhibition is an essential aspect of cognitive control that is necessary for terminating inappropriate preplanned or ongoing responses. Response-selective stopping represents a complex form of response inhibition where only a subcomponent of a multicomponent action must be terminated. In this context, a substantial response delay emerges on unstopped effectors after the cued effector is successfully stopped. This response delay has been termed the stopping interference effect. Converging lines of evidence indicate that this effect results from a global response inhibition mechanism that is recruited regardless of the stopping context. However, behavioral observations reveal that the stopping interference effect may not always occur during selective stopping. This review summarizes the behavioral and neural signatures of response inhibition during selective stopping. An overview of selective stopping contexts and the stopping interference effect is provided. A "restart" model of selective stopping is expanded on in light of recent neurophysiological evidence of selective and nonselective response inhibition. Factors beyond overt action cancellation that contribute to the stopping interference effect are discussed. Finally, a pause-then-cancel model of action stopping is presented as a candidate framework to understand stopping interference during response-selective stopping. The extant literature indicates that stopping interference may result from both selective and nonselective response inhibition processes, which can be amplified or attenuated by response conflict, task familiarity, and functional coupling.

OSARI, an Open-Source Anticipated Response Inhibition Task.

The stop-signal paradigm has become ubiquitous in investigations of inhibitory control. Tasks inspired by the paradigm, referred to as stop-signal tasks, require participants to make responses on go trials and to inhibit those responses when presented with a stop-signal on stop trials. Currently, the most popular version of the stop-signal task is the 'choice-reaction' variant, where participants make choice responses, but must inhibit those responses when presented with a stop-signal. An alternative to the choice-reaction variant of the stop-signal task is the 'anticipated response inhibition' task. In anticipated response inhibition tasks, participants are required to make a planned response that coincides with a predictably timed event (such as lifting a finger from a computer key to stop a filling bar at a predefined target). Anticipated response inhibition tasks have some advantages over the more traditional choice-reaction stop-signal tasks and are becoming increasingly popular. However, currently, there are no openly available versions of the anticipated response inhibition task, limiting potential uptake. Here, we present an open-source, free, and ready-to-use version of the anticipated response inhibition task, which we refer to as the OSARI (the Open-Source Anticipated Response Inhibition) task.

Decoupling countermands nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping.

Response inhibition is essential for goal-directed behavior within dynamic environments. Selective stopping is a complex form of response inhibition where only part of a multieffector response must be cancelled. A substantial response delay emerges on unstopped effectors when a cued effector is successfully stopped. This stopping-interference effect is indicative of nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping, which may, in part, be a consequence of functional coupling. The present study examined selective stopping of (de)coupled bimanual responses in healthy human participants of either sex. Participants performed synchronous and asynchronous versions of an anticipatory stop-signal paradigm across two sessions while mu (µ) and beta (ß) rhythms were measured with electroencephalography. Results showed that responses were behaviorally decoupled during asynchronous go trials and the extent of response asynchrony was associated with lateralized sensorimotor µ- and ß-desynchronization during response preparation. Selective stopping produced a stopping-interference effect and was marked by a nonselective increase and subsequent rebound in prefrontal and sensorimotor ß. In support of the coupling account, stopping-interference was smaller during selective stopping of asynchronous responses and negatively associated with the magnitude of decoupling. However, the increase in sensorimotor ß during selective stopping was equivalent between the stopped and unstopped hand irrespective of response synchrony. Overall, the findings demonstrate that decoupling facilitates selective stopping after a global pause process and emphasizes the importance of considering the influence of both the go and stop context when investigating response inhibition.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Humans rely on their ability to stop preplanned or ongoing movements. The present study identified neural signatures of response preparation and inhibition from electroencephalography during selective stopping of coupled and decoupled bimanual responses. Stopping was more selective for decoupled compared with coupled responses and supported by lateralization of sensorimotor mu and beta power during response preparation. These findings demonstrate that decoupling may have functional significance for understanding cognitive control in the form of selective stopping.

Between-hand coupling during response inhibition.

Response inhibition reflects the process of terminating inappropriate preplanned or ongoing movements. When one hand is cued to stop after preparing a bimanual response (Partial trial), there is a substantial delay on the responding side. This delay is termed the interference effect and identifies a constraint that limits selective response inhibition. γ-Aminobutyric acid (GABA)-mediated networks within primary motor cortex (M1) may have distinct roles during response inhibition. In this study we examined whether the interference effect is the consequence of between-hand "coupling" into a unitary response and whether this is reflected in GABAergic intracortical inhibition within M1. Eighteen healthy right-handed participants performed a bimanual synchronous and asynchronous anticipatory response inhibition task. Electromyographic recordings were obtained from the first dorsal interosseous muscle bilaterally. Motor evoked potentials were elicited by single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation over right M1. As expected, Go trial performance was better with the synchronous compared with the asynchronous version of the task. Paradoxically, response delays during Partial trials were longer with the synchronous compared with the asynchronous task. Although task difficulty did not modulate GABAergic intracortical inhibition, there was a trend for between-hand coupling on asynchronous trials to be associated with greater GABAB receptor-mediated inhibition and lesser recruitment of GABAA receptor-mediated inhibition. The novel findings indicate that the interference effect is in part a consequence of between-hand coupling into a unitary response during movement preparation. The ability to respond independently with the two hands may rely on modulation of distinct inhibitory processes.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The temporal dynamics of an anticipated response task were manipulated to effect the difficulty of behavioral stopping and the underlying effects on motor neurophysiology. There were large response delays during trials where a subcomponent of an upcoming bimanual response was cued to stop in conditions where the anticipated action of the hands were synchronous, but not when asynchronous. Response delays reflected the integration of actions of both hands into a unitary response.