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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chevrier, Andre, Cheyne, Douglas, Graham, Simon, Schachar, Russell
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