Balancing cognitive demands: control adjustments in the stop-signal paradigm

Cognitive control enables flexible interaction with a dynamic environment. In 2 experiments, the authors investigated control adjustments in the stop-signal paradigm, a procedure that requires balancing speed (going) and caution (stopping) in a dual-task environment. Focusing on the slowing of go reaction times after stop signals, the authors tested 5 competing hypotheses for post-stop-signal adjustments: goal priority, error detection, conflict monitoring, surprise, and memory. Reaction times increased after both successful and failed inhibition, consistent with the goal priority hypothesis and inconsistent with the error detection and conflict hypotheses. Post-stop-signal slowing was greater if the go task stimulus repeated on consecutive trials, suggesting a contribution of memory. We also found evidence for slowing based on more than the immediately preceding stop signal. Post-stop-signal slowing was greater when stop signals occurred more frequently (Experiment 1), inconsistent with the surprise hypothesis, and when inhibition failed more frequently (Experiment 2). This suggests that more global manipulations encompassing many trials affect post-stop-signal adjustments.     

Effects of stop signal modality, stop signal intensity and tracking method on inhibitory performance as determined by use of the stop signal paradigm

In Experiment 1, the effects of stop signal modality on the speed and efficiency of the inhibition process were examined. Stop signal reaction time (SSRT) and inhibition function slope in an auditory stop signal condition were compared to SSRT and inhibition function slope in a visual stop signal condition. It was found that auditory stop signals compared to visual stop signals enhanced both the speed and efficiency of stopping. The modality effects were attributed to differences in the neurophysiological processes underlying perception. However, Experiment 2 demonstrated that the modality difference was larger for 80 dB(A) auditory stop signals than 60 dB(A) auditory stop signals. This effect was reconciled with the suggestion that loud tones are more capable of eliciting immediate arousing effects on motor processes than weak tones and visual stimuli. The second purpose of the present investigation was to explore the utility (and potential advantages) of an alternative way of setting stop signal delay relative to mean reaction time (MRT). The method that was suggested compensates for inter-individual differences in primary task reaction speed by setting stop signal delays as proportions of the subjects' MRT.     

Inhibitory effects on response force in the stop-signal paradigm

The forcefulness of key press responses was measured in stop-all and selective stopping versions of the stop-signal paradigm. When stop signals were presented too late for participants to succeed in stopping their responses, response force was nonetheless reduced relative to trials in which no stop signal was presented. This effect shows that peripheral motor aspects of primary task responses can still be influenced by inhibition even when the stop signal arrives too late to prevent the response. It thus requires modification of race models in which responses in the presence of stop signals are either stopped completely or produced normally, depending on whether the responding or stopping process finishes first.     

Directed forgetting shares mechanisms with attentional withdrawal but not with stop-signal inhibition

To explore the mechanisms underlying the ability to intentionally forget, the present study combined an itemmethod directed forgetting paradigm with tasks that measure stop-signal inhibition (Experiments 1 and 2) and inhibition of return (IOR; Experiment 2). Following each study-phase instruction to remember (R) or forget (F), a target was presented centrally (Experiment 1) or to the left or right in the visual periphery (Experiment 2); the target required a speeded response that was sometimes countermanded by a central stop signal. Although stopsignal reaction times were unaffected by the preceding memory instruction (or relationship with word-target location), F instructions improved stopping and delayed responses. Replicating previous findings in the literature, significant IOR was observed following F instructions but not following R instructions (Experiment 2). These findings suggest that intentional forgetting is an active cognitive process that more likely engages attentional mechanisms related to orienting than those related to stop-signal inhibition.     

Exogenous verbal response inhibition in adults who do and do not stutter

IntroductionBehavioral and questionnaire-based studies suggest that children who stutter (CWS) exhibit poorer response inhibition than children who do not stutter (CWNS). However, the behavioral findings in adults who stutter (AWS) are less unequivocal and mainly based on manual response inhibition. Further study is therefore needed, especially given the lack of studies on verbal response inhibition among these groups.MethodsThirteen AWS and 14 adults who do not stutter (AWNS) participated in a verbal stop signal task (SST) in which they were asked to read aloud six Chinese characters as fast as possible during the go-signal and ignore-signal trials and refrain from naming them during the stop-signal trials.ResultsThe two groups showed a comparable response reaction time in the go-signal and ignore-signal trial conditions. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in terms of the stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) and accuracy. However, a significant positive correlation was found between SSRT and the frequency of stuttering in conversation but not in reading.ConclusionCurrent findings seem to provide additional support that exogenously triggered response inhibition among AWS does not differ from AWNS. The association between stuttering frequency and SSRT seems to suggest that individuals with more severe stuttering in conversational speech have reduced exogenous response inhibition. However, this finding needs to be further explored in future studies using different measures of stuttering severity.     

Effects of stimulus-stimulus compatibility and stimulus-response compatibility on response inhibition

Previous studies demonstrated that interference control in stimulus–stimulus compatibility tasks slowed down stopping in the stop signal task (e.g., Kramer, A. F., Humphrey, D. G., Larish, J. F., Logan, G. D., & Strayer, D. L. (1994). Aging and inhibition: beyond a unitary view of inhibitory processing in attention. psychology and aging, 9, 491–512). In the present study, the impact of stimulus–stimulus compatibility and stimulus–response compatibility on response inhibition is further investigated. In Experiment 1, the stop signal task was combined with a traditional horizontal Simon task and with a vertical variant. For both dimensions, stopping responses was prolonged in incompatible trials, but only when the previous trial was compatible. In Experiment 2, the Simon task was combined with a spatial Stroop task in order to compare the effects of stimulus–stimulus and stimulus–response compatibility. The results demonstrated that both types of compatibility influenced stopping in a similar way. These findings are in favor of the hypothesis that response inhibition in the stop signal task and interference control in conflict tasks rely on similar mechanisms.     

IMPULSIVITY AND INHIBITORY CONTROL

Abstract— We report an experiment testing the hypothesis that impulsive behavior reflects a deficit in the ability to inhibit prepotent responses Specifically, we examined whether impulsive people respond more slowly to signals to inhibit (stop signals) than non-impulsive people In this experiment, 136 undergraduate students completed an impulsivity questionnaire and then participated in a stop-signal experiment, in which they performed a choice reaction time (go) task and were asked to inhibit their responses to the go task when they heard a stop signal The delay between the go signal and the stop signal was determined by a tracking procedure designed to allow subjects to inhibit on 50% of the stop-signal trials. Reaction time to the go signal did not vary with impulsivity, but estimated stop-signal reaction time was longer in more impulsive subjects, consistent with the hypothesis and consistent with results from populations with pathological problems with impulse control.     

A stop-signal task for sheep: introduction and validation of a direct measure for the stop-signal reaction time

Huntington’s disease (HD) patients show reduced flexibility in inhibiting an already-started response. This can be quantified by the stop-signal task. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a sheep version of the stop-signal task that would be suitable for monitoring the progression of cognitive decline in a transgenic sheep model of HD. Using a semi-automated operant system, sheep were trained to perform in a two-choice discrimination task. In 22% of the trials, a stop-signal was presented. Upon the stop-signal presentation, the sheep had to inhibit their already-started response. The stopping behaviour was captured using an accelerometer mounted on the back of the sheep. This set-up provided a direct read-out of the individual stop-signal reaction time (SSRT). We also estimated the SSRT using the conventional approach of subtracting the stop-signal delay (i.e., time after which the stop-signal is presented) from the ranked reaction time during a trial without a stop-signal. We found that all sheep could inhibit an already-started response in 91% of the stop-trials. The directly measured SSRT (0.974 ± 0.04 s) was not significantly different from the estimated SSRT (0.938 ± 0.04 s). The sheep version of the stop-signal task adds to the repertoire of tests suitable for investigating both cognitive dysfunction and efficacy of therapeutic agents in sheep models of neurodegenerative disease such as HD, as well as neurological conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.     

Developmental trends in simple and selective inhibition of compatible and incompatible responses

This study examined age-related change in the ability to inhibit responses using two varieties of the stop signal paradigm. Three age groups (29 7-year-olds, 24 10-year-olds, and 28 young adults) performed first on a visual choice reaction task in which the spatial mapping between the go signal and response was varied between blocks. The choice task was then complicated by randomly inserting a visual stop signal on 30% of the trials. In the simple stop signal paradigm, the stop signal required the inhibition of the planned response. In the selective stop signal paradigm, the stop signal required response inhibition only when the stop signal was presented at the same side as the instructed response to the go signal. The results showed that simple stopping was faster than selective stopping and that selective, but not simple, stopping of incompatible responses was slower than stopping of compatible responses. Brinley plot analysis yielded linear functions relating children's latencies to adults' latencies. Analysis of shared variance indicated that developmental change in the speed of selective stopping continued to be significant even when the effect associated with simple stopping was removed. This pattern of findings is discussed vis-à-vis notions of global versus specific developmental trends in the speed of information processing.     

Reward prospect rapidly speeds up response inhibition via reactive control

Response inhibition is an important cognitive-control function that allows for already-initiated or habitual behavioral responses to be promptly withheld when needed. A typical paradigm to study this function is the stop-signal task. From this task, the stop-signal response time (SSRT) can be derived, which indexes how rapidly an already-initiated response can be canceled. Typically, SSRTs range around 200 ms, identifying response inhibition as a particularly rapid cognitive-control process. Even so, it has recently been shown that SSRTs can be further accelerated if successful response inhibition is rewarded. Since this earlier study effectively ruled out differential preparatory (proactive) control adjustments, the reward benefits likely relied on boosted reactive control. Yet, given how rapidly such control processes would need to be enhanced, alternative explanations circumventing reactive control are important to consider. We addressed this question with an fMRI study by gauging the overlap of the brain networks associated with reward-related and response-inhibition-related processes in a reward-modulated stop-signal task. In line with the view that reactive control can indeed be boosted swiftly by reward availability, we found that the activity in key brain areas related to response inhibition was enhanced for reward-related stop trials. Furthermore, we observed that this beneficial reward effect was triggered by enhanced connectivity between task-unspecific (reward-related) and task-specific (inhibition-related) areas in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). The present data hence suggest that reward information can be translated very rapidly into behavioral benefits (here, within ~200 ms) through enhanced reactive control, underscoring the immediate responsiveness of such control processes to reward availability in general.     

Effects of stop-signal probability in the stop-signal paradigm: the N2/P3 complex further validated

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of frequency of occurrence of stop signals in the stop-signal paradigm. Presenting stop signals less frequently resulted in faster reaction times to the go stimulus and a lower probability of inhibition. Also, go stimuli elicited larger and somewhat earlier P3 responses when stop signals occurred less frequently. Since the amplitude effect was more pronounced on trials when go signals were followed by fast than slow reactions, it probably reflected a stronger set to produce fast responses. N2 and P3 components to stop signals were observed to be larger and of longer latency when stop signals occurred less frequently. The amplitude enhancement of these N2 and P3 components were more pronounced for unsuccessful than for successful stop-signal trials. Moreover, the successfully inhibited stop trials elicited a frontocentral P3 whereas unsuccessfully inhibited stop trials elicited a more posterior P3 that resembled the classical P3b. P3 amplitude in the unsuccessfully inhibited condition also differed between waveforms synchronized with the stop signal and waveforms synchronized with response onset whereas N2 amplitude did not. Taken together these findings suggest that N2 reflected a greater significance of failed inhibitions after low probability stop signals while P3 reflected continued processing of the erroneous response after response execution.     

Motor response inhibition and execution in the stop-signal task: development and relation to ADHD behaviors.

The main aim of this study was to investigate the developmental course of motor response inhibition and execution as measured by the stop-signal task in a population-based sample of 525 4- to 12-year-olds. A further aspiration of the study was to enhance the limited knowledge on how the various stop-signal measures relate to ADHD behaviors in a normal sample. We also wanted to contribute to the theoretical understanding of the various stop-signal measures by examining the relations between the stop-signal measures and performance on tasks reflecting other aspects of response inhibition and execution. Our results showed that the ability to inhibit as well as to execute a motor response as measured by the stop-signal task improved with age during childhood. Of specific interest are the findings suggesting that this task captures the development of motor response inhibition in the late preschool years (age 5 years). Both of the inhibition measures derived from the stop-signal task (i.e., SSRT and probability of inhibition) related significantly to teacher ratings of inattention as well as to performance on tasks tapping other aspects of inhibition. The data provided by this study have thus contributed to the scarce knowledge on early development of motor response inhibition, as well as suggested that the stop-signal task may be a valuable tool for capturing deficient motor response inhibition in ADHD behaviors in normal samples.     

The development of selective inhibitory control: The influence of verbal labeling

The role of language in the development of selective inhibitory control was examined in four groups: Children aged 7-9 years, children aged 11-13 years, adults aged 20-27 years, and adults aged 62-76 years. We used a modified stop-signal task in which participants inhibited or executed responses based on a visual signal. Response execution and inhibition were assessed by measurement of reaction times (RTs) and error rates to a go signal and RTs to a stop signal. Four task variations were compared in which subjects named (1) the stimulus, (2) the intended action (go/stop), (3) something irrelevant, or (4) nothing. Results showed different developmental trends for response execution and inhibition across the lifespan. Moreover, response execution was faster and more accurate when subjects named the stimulus instead of the intended action. The increase in response accuracy when naming the stimulus was greatest for children. In contrast to expectations, naming the intended action did not influence response inhibition. Overall, these findings suggest that verbal labeling supports the initiation but not the inhibition of actions.     

On the difference between response inhibition and negative priming: Evidence from simple and selective stopping

Negative priming is a commonly observed after-effect in studies concerning inhibition. Effects of the preceding trial are also found in other paradigms, like the stop signal paradigm. In the present study, stop signals were introduced in a negative priming paradigm and the relation between stop signal inhibition and negative priming was investigated. In Experiment 1, we used a simple stop signal task. Stopping data clearly suggest that stopping performance was not influenced by negative priming. Interestingly, on no-signal probes the negative priming effect disappeared after successful inhibition of the response on the prime trial. On the contrary, when inhibition failed, the negative priming effect remained. In Experiment 2, we used the selective stop signal task. As in Experiment 1, inhibition of motor responses was not influenced by negative priming. The hypothesis that negative priming disappeared due to a general nonspecific stop was confirmed in this experiment, as a negative priming effect was found after both successful and unsuccessful behavioral inhibition. The results of both experiments show that response inhibition is not influenced by negative priming, and that negative priming is only affected after a successful general stop.     

You better stop! Binding “stop” tags to irrelevant stimulus features

We investigated whether the basic process of integrating stimuli (and their features) with simultaneously executed responses transfers to situations in which one does not respond to a stimulus. In three experiments, a stop-signal task was combined with a sequential priming paradigm to test whether irrelevant stimulus features become associated with a “stop” tag. Stopping a simple response during the prime trial delayed responding and facilitated stopping in the probe if the same irrelevant stimulus feature was repeated in the probe. These repetition priming effects were independent of the relation between the to-be-executed (or to-be-stopped) responses in the prime and probe, indicating that “stop” tags are global (“stop all responses!”) rather than being response-related (e.g., “stop left response!”).     

Cancelling discrete and stopping ongoing rhythmic movements: Do they involve the same process of motor inhibition?

Motor inhibition is considered to be an important process of executive control and to be implicated in numerous activities in order to cancel prepared actions and, supposedly, to suppress ongoing ones. Usually, it is evaluated using a “stop-signal task” in which participants have to inhibit prepared discrete movements. However, it is unknown whether other movement types involve the same inhibition process. We therefore investigated whether the inhibition process for discrete movements is involved in stopping ongoing rhythmic movements as well.Twenty healthy adults performed two counterbalanced tasks. The first task was used to estimate the stop-signal reaction time (SSRTd) needed to inhibit prepared discrete key-pressing movements. In the second task, participants drew graphic patterns on a tablet and had to stop the movement when a stop-signal occurred. We calculated the rhythmic stop signal-reaction time as the time needed to initiate stopping such ongoing rhythmic movement (SSRTr) and the same latency relative to the period of the rhythmic movement (relSSRTr). We measured these delays under different movement frequencies and motor coordination conditions and further investigated whether they varied as a function of several parameters of the rhythmic movements (speed, mean and variance of the relative phase, and movement phase at several time events).We found no correlation between inhibition measures in the two tasks. In contrast, generalized linear models showed a moderate yet significant influence of the motion parameters on the inhibition of ongoing rhythmic movements. We therefore conclude that the motor inhibition processes involved in cancelling prepared discrete movements and stopping ongoing rhythmic movements are dissimilar.     

The effect of interference in the early processing stages on response inhibition in the stop signal task

In the present study, the relation between interference at the early processing stages and response inhibition was investigated. In previous studies, response stopping appeared to be slowed down when irrelevant distracting information was presented. The purpose of the present study was to further explore the relationship between interference control and response inhibition. In Experiment 1, a stop signal paradigm was combined with a global/local task. The typical global-to-local interference effect is generally attributed to early processing stages, such as stimulus perception and identification. Results of this experiment demonstrated a congruency effect for both reaction time data and zstopping performance. In Experiment 2, these results were replicated with a flanker task that used stimulus-incongruent but response-congruent flankers. Results of both experiments suggest that response inhibition and interference at the early processing stages interact.     

The effect of interference in the early processing stages on response inhibition in the stop signal task

In the present study, the relation between interference at the early processing stages and response inhibition was investigated. In previous studies, response stopping appeared to be slowed down when irrelevant distracting information was presented. The purpose of the present study was to further explore the relationship between interference control and response inhibition. In Experiment 1, a stop signal paradigm was combined with a global/local task. The typical global-to-local interference effect is generally attributed to early processing stages, such as stimulus perception and identification. Results of this experiment demonstrated a congruency effect for both reaction time data and zstopping performance. In Experiment 2, these results were replicated with a flanker task that used stimulus-incongruent but response-congruent flankers. Results of both experiments suggest that response inhibition and interference at the early processing stages interact.     

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Behavioral Inhibition: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Stop-signal Paradigm

Deficient behavioral inhibition (BI) processes are considered a core feature of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This meta-analytic review is the first to examine the potential influence of a wide range of subject and task variable moderator effects on BI processes--assessed by the stop-signal paradigm--in children with ADHD relative to typically developing children. Results revealed significantly slower mean reaction time (MRT), greater reaction time variability (SDRT), and slower stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) in children with ADHD relative to controls. The non-significant between-group stop-signal delay (SSD) metric, however, suggests that stop-signal reaction time differences reflect a more generalized deficit in attention/cognitive processing rather than behavioral inhibition. Several subject and task variables served as significant moderators for children's mean reaction time.     

Novel Measures of Response Performance and Inhibition in Children with ADHD

Fifteen children with ADHD aged 8 to 12 years and age and gender matched controls performed two different stopping tasks to examine response performance and inhibition and their respective moment-to-moment variability. One task was the well-established stop-signal task, while the other was a novel tracking task where the children tracked a spaceship on the screen until an alarm indicated they should stop. Although performance was discrete in the stop signal task and continuous in the tracking task, in both tasks latencies to the stop signal were significantly slowed in children with ADHD. Go performance and variability did not significantly differ between ADHD and control children in either task. Importantly, stopping latency in the novel spaceship tracking task also was more variable in children with ADHD. As stopping variability cannot be measured using the standard stop signal task, the new task offers compelling support for the heretofore untested prediction that stopping is both slowed and more variable in children with ADHD. The results support a response inhibition impairment in ADHD, whilst limiting the extent of an intra-trial variability deficit.