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.     

A Bayesian approach for estimating the probability of trigger failures in the stop-signal paradigm

Response inhibition is frequently investigated using the stop-signal paradigm, where participants perform a two-choice response time task that is occasionally interrupted by a stop signal instructing them to withhold their response. Stop-signal performance is formalized as a race between a go and a stop process. If the go process wins, the response is executed; if the stop process wins, the response is inhibited. Successful inhibition requires fast stop responses and a high probability of triggering the stop process. Existing methods allow for the estimation of the latency of the stop response, but are unable to identify deficiencies in triggering the stop process. We introduce a Bayesian model that addresses this limitation and enables researchers to simultaneously estimate the probability of trigger failures and the entire distribution of stopping latencies. We demonstrate that trigger failures are clearly present in two previous studies, and that ignoring them distorts estimates of stopping latencies. The parameter estimation routine is implemented in the BEESTS software (Matzke et al., Front. Quantitative Psych. Measurement, 4, 918; 2013a) and is available at http://dora.erbe-matzke.com/software.html.     

The auditory-evoked N2 and P3 components in the stop-signal task: indices of inhibition, response-conflict or error-detection?

The N2 and P3 components have been separately associated with response inhibition in the stop-signal task, and more recently, the N2 has been implicated in the detection of response-conflict. To isolate response inhibition activity from early sensory processing, the present study compared processing of the stop-signal with that of a task-irrelevant tone, which subjects were instructed to ignore. Stop-signals elicited a larger N2 on failed-stop trials and a larger P3 on successful-stop trials, relative to ignore-signal trials, likely reflecting activity related to failed and successful stopping, respectively. ERPs between fast and slow reaction-time (RT) groups were also examined as it was hypothesised that greater inhibitory activation to stop faster responses would manifest in the component reflecting this process. Successful-stop P3 showed the anticipated effect (globally larger amplitude in the fast than slow RT group), supporting its association with the stopping of an ongoing response. In contrast, N2 was larger in the slow than fast RT group, and in contrast to the predictions of the response-conflict hypothesis, successful-stop N2 and the response-locked error-negativity (Ne) differed in scalp distribution. These findings indicate that the successful-stop N2 may be better explained as a deliberate form of response control or selection, which the slow RT group employed as a means of increasing the likelihood of a successful-stop. Finally, a comparison of stimulus and response-locked ERPs revealed that the failed-stop N2 and P3 appeared to reflect error-related activity, best observed in the response-locked Ne and error-positivity (Pe). Together these findings indicate that the successful-stop N2 and P3 reflect functionally distinct aspects of response control that are dependent upon performance strategies, while failed-stop N2 and P3 reflect error-related activity.     

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.     

Redundancy gain in the stop-signal paradigm: implications for the locus of coactivation in simple reaction time

The authors carried out 2 experiments designed to cast light on the locus of redundancy gain in simple visual reaction time by using a stop-signal paradigm. In Experiment 1, the authors found that single visual stimuli were more easily inhibited than double visual stimuli by an acoustic stop signal. This result is in keeping with the idea that redundancy gain occurs prior to the ballistic stage of the stop-signal task. In Experiment 2, the authors found that the response to an acoustic go signal was more easily inhibited by a double than by a single visual stop signal. This result provides conclusive evidence for a redundancy gain in the stop process--in a process that does not involve a motor response but rather its inhibition.     

When the brain simulates stopping: Neural activity recorded during real and imagined stop-signal tasks

It has been suggested that mental rehearsal activates brain areas similar to those activated by real performance. Although inhibition is a key function of human behavior, there are no previous reports of brain activity during imagined response cancellation. We analyzed event-related potentials (ERPs) and time–frequency data associated with motor execution and inhibition during real and imagined performance of a stop-signal task. The ERPs characteristic of stop trials—that is, the stop-N2 and stop-P3—were also observed during covert performance of the task. Imagined stop (IS) trials yielded smaller stop-N2 amplitudes than did successful stop (SS) and unsuccessful stop (US) trials, but midfrontal theta power similar to that in SS trials. The stop-P3 amplitude for IS was intermediate between those observed for SS and US. The results may be explained by the absence of error-processing and correction processes during imagined performance. For go trials, real execution was associated with higher mu and beta desynchronization over motor areas, which confirms previous reports of lower motor activation during imagined execution and also with larger P3b amplitudes, probably indicating increased top-down attention to the real task. The similar patterns of activity observed for imagined and real performance suggest that imagination tasks may be useful for training inhibitory processes. Nevertheless, brain activation was generally weaker during mental rehearsal, probably as a result of the reduced engagement of top-down mechanisms and limited error processing.     

The duration of response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm varies with response force

In a previous study, we have found that the speed of stopping a response is delayed when response readiness is reduced by cuing the probability of no-go trials [Acta Psychol. 111 (2002) 155]. Other investigators observed that responses are more forceful when the probability to respond is low than when it is high (e.g. [Quart. J. Exp. Psychol. A 50 (1997) 405]). In this study, the hypothesis was tested that low probability responses are more forceful than high probability responses and that these responses are more difficult to stop. Subjects performed on a choice reaction task and on three tasks with respectively 100%, 80%, and 50% response probabilities. Stop signals were presented on 30% of the trials, instructing subjects to withhold their response. Response force on non-signal (go) trials and the duration of response inhibition on signal (stop) trials increased as response probability decreased. This pattern of findings was interpreted to support the hypothesis predicting that stopping is more difficult when response readiness is low than when it is high.     

Stopping ability in younger and older adults: Behavioral and event-related potential

This study examines age-related differences in inhibitory control as measured by stop-signal performance. The participants were 24 adults aged 20–30 years and 24 older adults aged 61–76 years. The task blocks were pure choice reaction-time blocks, global stop-signal blocks (with an auditory stop signal), and selective stop-signal blocks (with valid and invalid stop signals). There was a decline in reactive inhibitory control for the older group reflected by greater stop-signal reaction times and reduced P3 peak amplitudes in both global and selective stop-signal task blocks. The decreased reactive inhibitory control might result from speed-accuracy tradeoffs. Conversely, no age-related decline in proactive inhibitory control was observed. This was reflected by slower response times (RTs) and reduced P3 peak amplitudes during GO trials in blocks with stop-signals relative to those in blocks of pure choice reaction-time tasks, and in which the RT and amplitude differences were similar between groups. The results further show age-related compensation responses associated with proactive inhibition, such as increased activation at the frontal site among older participants, resulting in no differences in P3 peak amplitudes between electrode sites, and smaller differences at the Fz site than other sites compared with younger adults. For older adults, the P3 peak amplitude at the Fz site was significantly correlated with the RT of proactive inhibitory control. This shows that larger RT differences were associated with larger reductions in P3 peak amplitudes in the stop-signal blocks relative to the pure choice blocks. These results appear to support age-related compensation hypotheses.     

Stopping,goal-conflict,trait anxiety and frontal rhythmic power in the stop-signal task

The medial right frontal cortex is implicated in fast stopping of an initiated motor action in the stop-signal task (SST). To assess whether this region is also involved in the slower behavioural inhibition induced by goal conflict, we tested for effects of goal conflict (when stop and go tendencies are balanced) on low-frequency rhythms in the SST. Stop trials were divided, according to the delays at which the stop signal occurred, into short-, intermediate-, and long-delay trials. Consistent with goal-conflict processing, intermediate-delay trials were associated with greater 7–8 Hz EEG power than short- or long-delay trials at medial right frontal sites (Fz, F4, and F8). At F8, 7–8 Hz power was linked to high trait anxiety and neuroticism. A separate 4–7 Hz power increase was also seen in stop, relative to go, trials, but this was independent of delay, was maximal at the central midline site Cz, and predicted faster stopping. Together with previous data on the SST, these results suggest that the right frontal region could be involved in multiple inhibition mechanisms. We propose a hierarchical model of the control of stopping that integrates the literature on the neural control of fast motor stopping with that on slower, motive-directed behavioural inhibition.     

Post-stop-signal adjustments: inhibition improves subsequent inhibition

Performance in the stop-signal paradigm involves a balance between going and stopping, and one way that this balance is struck is through shifting priority away from the go task, slowing responses after a stop signal, and improving the probability of inhibition. In 6 experiments, the authors tested whether there is a corresponding shift in priority toward the stop task, speeding reaction time to the stop signal. Consistent with this hypothesis, stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) decreased on the trial immediately following a stop signal in each experiment. Experiments 2-4 used 2 very different stop signals within a modality, and stopping improved when the stop stimulus repeated and alternated. Experiments 5 and 6 presented stop signals in different modalities and showed that SSRT improved only when the stop stimulus repeated within a modality. These results demonstrate within-modality post-stop-signal speeding of response inhibition.     

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.     

STOP-IT: Windows executable software for the stop-signal paradigm

The stop-signal paradigm is a useful tool for the investigation of response inhibition. In this paradigm, subjects are instructed to respond as fast as possible to a stimulus unless a stop signal is presented after a variable delay. However, programming the stop-signal task is typically considered to be difficult. To overcome this issue, we present software called STOP-IT, for running the stop-signal task, as well as an additional analyzing program called ANALYZE-IT. The main advantage of both programs is that they are a precompiled executable, and for basic use there is no need for additional programming. STOP-IT and ANALYZE-IT are completely based on free software, are distributed under the GNU General Public License, and are available at the personal Web sites of the first two authors or at expsy.ugent.be/tscope/stop.html.     

Changes in spinal reflex excitability in a countermanded timed response task

Subjects (N = 8) performed a timed response task in which they attempted to synchronize an impulsive foot-press response with the last in a series of four regularly spaced tones. In Experiment 1, the response was countermanded on one third of the trials (stop trials) by a stop signal that appeared at a predetermined delay after the third tone. No stop signal appeared on the remaining trials (go trials). All subjects showed a systematic transition from withholding the response on stop trials in which the stop signal appeared shortly after the third tone to executing the response on trials in which a single stop signal delay had been chosen so that a response would be made on about 50% of the stop trials. We elicited Hoffmann (H) reflexes from the soleus muscle on all trials to determine whether the reflexes were augmented on occasions on which a response was prepared but withheld. Mean H-reflex amplitudes on go trials and on stop trials on which the response was executed were similar and showed a marked augmentation beginning about 250 ms before response onset; mean H-reflex amplitudes on stop trials on which the response was withheld showed less pronounced augmentation. Inspection of individual H-reflex amplitudes revealed that on stop trials on which the response was withheld the reflexes could be augmented to the same extent as on trials on which the response was executed. This dissociation of H-reflex augmentation and response execution shows that H-reflex augmentation reflects a controlled response process. Ballistic response processes therefore must be limited to a brief duration.     

Countermanding saccades: evidence against independent processing of go and stop signals

In a stop signal paradigm, subjects were instructed to make a saccade to a visual target appearing left or right of the fixation point. In 25% of the trials, an auditory stop signal was presented after a variable delay that required the subject to inhibit the saccade. Observed saccadic response times in stop failure trials were longer than predicted by Logan and Cowan's (1984) race model. Saccadic response time and amplitude decreased with the time between stop signal presentation and saccade execution, suggesting an inhibitory effect between the stop signal and the go signal processes that is not compatible with an independent race assumption. Moreover, countermanding a saccade was more difficult when stop and go signals appeared at the same location.     

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.     

Automatic and controlled response inhibition: associative learning in the go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms

In 5 experiments, the authors examined the development of automatic response inhibition in the go/no-go paradigm and a modified version of the stop-signal paradigm. They hypothesized that automatic response inhibition may develop over practice when stimuli are consistently associated with stopping. All 5 experiments consisted of a training phase and a test phase in which the stimulus mapping was reversed for a subset of the stimuli. Consistent with the automatic-inhibition hypothesis, the authors found that responding in the test phase was slowed when the stimulus had been consistently associated with stopping in the training phase. In addition, they found that response inhibition benefited from consistent stimulus-stop associations. These findings suggest that response inhibition may rely on the retrieval of stimulus-stop associations after practice with consistent stimulus-stop mappings. Stimulus-stop mapping is typically consistent in the go/no-go paradigm, so automatic inhibition is likely to occur. However, stimulus-stop mapping is typically inconsistent in the stop-signal paradigm, so automatic inhibition is unlikely to occur. Thus, the results suggest that the two paradigms are not equivalent because they allow different kinds of response inhibition.     

Inhibiting responses when switching: Does it matter?

In the present study, cued task-switching was combined with the stop-signal paradigm in order to investigate the interaction between response inhibition and task-switching. In line with earlier findings from Schuch and Koch (2003), the results show that switch and repetition trials following inhibited responses were processed equally fast. This confirms the hypothesis of Schuch and Koch (2003) that after signal-inhibit trials there is less interference, resulting in a disappearance of the switch cost. Furthermore, stopping performance was not affected by task-switching. The estimated stop-signal latencies were similar for switch and repetition trials, while the stop-signal delays were longer for switch compared to repetition trials. This result suggests that response inhibition and the inhibition processes in cued task-switching are not relying upon a common mechanism.     

On the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time responses: a model and a method

This article reports four experiments on the ability to inhibit responses in simple and choice reaction time (RT) tasks. Subjects responding to visually presented letters were occasionally presented with a stop signal (a tone) that told them not to respond on that trial. The major dependent variables were (a) the probability of inhibiting a response when the signal occurred, (b) mean and standard deviation (SD) of RT on no-signal trials, (c) mean RT on trials on which the signal occurred but subjects failed to inhibit, and (d) estimated RT to the stop signal. A model was proposed to estimated RT to the stop signal and to account for the relations among the variables. Its main assumption is that the RT process and the stopping process race, and response inhibition depends on which process finishes first. The model allows us to account for differences in response inhibition between tasks in terms of transformations of stop-signal delay that represent the relative finishing times of the RT process and the stopping process. The transformations specified by the model were successful in group data and in data from individual subjects, regardless of how delays were selected. The experiments also compared different methods of selecting stop-signal delays to equate the probability of inhibition in the two tasks.     

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.     

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.