Cargando…
Dissociating Two Stages of Preparation in the Stop Signal Task Using fMRI
Often we must balance being prepared to act quickly with being prepared to suddenly stop. The stop signal task (SST) is widely used to study inhibitory control, and provides a measure of the speed of the stop process that is robust to changes in subjects’ response strategy. Previous studies have sho...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4481508/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26110429 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130992 |
_version_ | 1782378285444890624 |
---|---|
author | Chevrier, Andre Cheyne, Douglas Graham, Simon Schachar, Russell |
author_facet | Chevrier, Andre Cheyne, Douglas Graham, Simon Schachar, Russell |
author_sort | Chevrier, Andre |
collection | PubMed |
description | Often we must balance being prepared to act quickly with being prepared to suddenly stop. The stop signal task (SST) is widely used to study inhibitory control, and provides a measure of the speed of the stop process that is robust to changes in subjects’ response strategy. Previous studies have shown that preparation affects inhibition. We used fMRI to separate activity that occurs after a brief (500 ms) warning stimulus (warning-phase) from activity that occurs during responses that follow (response-phase). Both of these phases could contribute to the preparedness to stop because they both precede stop signals. Warning stimuli activated posterior networks that signal the need for top-down control, whereas response phases engaged prefrontal and subcortical networks that implement top-down control. Regression analyses revealed that both of these phases affect inhibitory control in different ways. Warning-phase activity in the cerebellum and posterior cingulate predicted stop latency and accuracy, respectively. By contrast, response-phase activity in fronto-temporal areas and left striatum predicted go speed and stop accuracy, in pre-supplementary motor area affected stop accuracy, and in right striatum predicted stop latency and accuracy. The ability to separate hidden contributions to inhibitory control during warning-phases from those during response-phases can aid in the study of models of preparation and inhibitory control, and of disorders marked by poor top-down control. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4481508 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44815082015-07-01 Dissociating Two Stages of Preparation in the Stop Signal Task Using fMRI Chevrier, Andre Cheyne, Douglas Graham, Simon Schachar, Russell PLoS One Research Article Often we must balance being prepared to act quickly with being prepared to suddenly stop. The stop signal task (SST) is widely used to study inhibitory control, and provides a measure of the speed of the stop process that is robust to changes in subjects’ response strategy. Previous studies have shown that preparation affects inhibition. We used fMRI to separate activity that occurs after a brief (500 ms) warning stimulus (warning-phase) from activity that occurs during responses that follow (response-phase). Both of these phases could contribute to the preparedness to stop because they both precede stop signals. Warning stimuli activated posterior networks that signal the need for top-down control, whereas response phases engaged prefrontal and subcortical networks that implement top-down control. Regression analyses revealed that both of these phases affect inhibitory control in different ways. Warning-phase activity in the cerebellum and posterior cingulate predicted stop latency and accuracy, respectively. By contrast, response-phase activity in fronto-temporal areas and left striatum predicted go speed and stop accuracy, in pre-supplementary motor area affected stop accuracy, and in right striatum predicted stop latency and accuracy. The ability to separate hidden contributions to inhibitory control during warning-phases from those during response-phases can aid in the study of models of preparation and inhibitory control, and of disorders marked by poor top-down control. Public Library of Science 2015-06-25 /pmc/articles/PMC4481508/ /pubmed/26110429 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130992 Text en © 2015 Chevrier et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Chevrier, Andre Cheyne, Douglas Graham, Simon Schachar, Russell Dissociating Two Stages of Preparation in the Stop Signal Task Using fMRI |
title | Dissociating Two Stages of Preparation in the Stop Signal Task Using fMRI |
title_full | Dissociating Two Stages of Preparation in the Stop Signal Task Using fMRI |
title_fullStr | Dissociating Two Stages of Preparation in the Stop Signal Task Using fMRI |
title_full_unstemmed | Dissociating Two Stages of Preparation in the Stop Signal Task Using fMRI |
title_short | Dissociating Two Stages of Preparation in the Stop Signal Task Using fMRI |
title_sort | dissociating two stages of preparation in the stop signal task using fmri |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4481508/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26110429 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130992 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chevrierandre dissociatingtwostagesofpreparationinthestopsignaltaskusingfmri AT cheynedouglas dissociatingtwostagesofpreparationinthestopsignaltaskusingfmri AT grahamsimon dissociatingtwostagesofpreparationinthestopsignaltaskusingfmri AT schacharrussell dissociatingtwostagesofpreparationinthestopsignaltaskusingfmri |