Cargando…

Mouse Tracking to Explore Motor Inhibition Processes in Go/No-Go and Stop Signal Tasks

Response inhibition relies on both proactive and reactive mechanisms that exert a synergic control on goal-directed actions. It is typically evaluated by the go/no-go (GNG) and the stop signal task (SST) with response recording based on the key-press method. However, the analysis of discrete variabl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Benedetti, Viola, Gavazzi, Gioele, Giovannelli, Fabio, Bravi, Riccardo, Giganti, Fiorenza, Minciacchi, Diego, Mascalchi, Mario, Cincotta, Massimo, Viggiano, Maria Pia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7408439/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32698348
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10070464
Descripción
Sumario:Response inhibition relies on both proactive and reactive mechanisms that exert a synergic control on goal-directed actions. It is typically evaluated by the go/no-go (GNG) and the stop signal task (SST) with response recording based on the key-press method. However, the analysis of discrete variables (i.e., present or absent responses) registered by key-press could be insufficient to capture dynamic aspects of inhibitory control. Trying to overcome this limitation, in the present study we used a mouse tracking procedure to characterize movement profiles related to proactive and reactive inhibition. A total of fifty-three participants performed a cued GNG and an SST. The cued GNG mainly involves proactive control whereas the reactive component is mainly engaged in the SST. We evaluated the velocity profile from mouse trajectories both for responses obtained in the Go conditions and for inhibitory failures. Movements were classified as one-shot when no corrections were observed. Multi-peaked velocity profiles were classified as non-one-shot. A higher proportion of one-shot movements was found in the SST compared to the cued GNG when subjects failed to inhibit responses. This result suggests that proactive control may be responsible for unsmooth profiles in inhibition failures, supporting a differentiation between these tasks.