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.     

On the Subjectivity of the Experience of Victory: Who Are the Election Winners?

Elections represent key moments in democratic countries, and an established finding from the existing literature is that winners of elections display higher levels of satisfaction with democracy. Yet we know almost nothing about the times when voters feel like winners of an election. Using panel data in four countries, this article finds that while the objective performance of the supported party—measured using vote share and changes in vote share from the previous election—has a very important effect on feeling like an election winner, prior expectations regarding the election’s outcome as well as preferences for the supported party significantly moderate the effect of party performance on voter feelings. It seems also that the identification of the winners and losers of elections are clearer in majoritarian‐style democracies than in proportional systems with coalition governments. Ultimately, the findings indicate that measuring who are the winners of an election using exclusively objective measures of party performance may provide a distorted view of public opinion following the elections.