Cargando…

Dynamical EEG Indices of Progressive Motor Inhibition and Error-Monitoring

Response inhibition has been widely explored using the stop signal paradigm in the laboratory setting. However, the mechanism that demarcates attentional capture from the motor inhibition process is still unclear. Error monitoring is also involved in the stop signal task. Error responses that do not...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nguyen, Trung Van, Balachandran, Prasad, Muggleton, Neil G., Liang, Wei-Kuang, Juan, Chi-Hung
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8070019/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33918711
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11040478
_version_ 1783683372845891584
author Nguyen, Trung Van
Balachandran, Prasad
Muggleton, Neil G.
Liang, Wei-Kuang
Juan, Chi-Hung
author_facet Nguyen, Trung Van
Balachandran, Prasad
Muggleton, Neil G.
Liang, Wei-Kuang
Juan, Chi-Hung
author_sort Nguyen, Trung Van
collection PubMed
description Response inhibition has been widely explored using the stop signal paradigm in the laboratory setting. However, the mechanism that demarcates attentional capture from the motor inhibition process is still unclear. Error monitoring is also involved in the stop signal task. Error responses that do not complete, i.e., partial errors, may require different error monitoring mechanisms relative to an overt error. Thus, in this study, we included a “continue go” (Cont_Go) condition to the stop signal task to investigate the inhibitory control process. To establish the finer difference in error processing (partial vs. full unsuccessful stop (USST)), a grip-force device was used in tandem with electroencephalographic (EEG), and the time-frequency characteristics were computed with Hilbert–Huang transform (HHT). Relative to Cont_Go, HHT results reveal (1) an increased beta and low gamma power for successful stop trials, indicating an electrophysiological index of inhibitory control, (2) an enhanced theta and alpha power for full USST trials that may mirror error processing. Additionally, the higher theta and alpha power observed in partial over full USST trials around 100 ms before the response onset, indicating the early detection of error and the corresponding correction process. Together, this study extends our understanding of the finer motor inhibition control and its dynamic electrophysiological mechanisms.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8070019
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80700192021-04-26 Dynamical EEG Indices of Progressive Motor Inhibition and Error-Monitoring Nguyen, Trung Van Balachandran, Prasad Muggleton, Neil G. Liang, Wei-Kuang Juan, Chi-Hung Brain Sci Article Response inhibition has been widely explored using the stop signal paradigm in the laboratory setting. However, the mechanism that demarcates attentional capture from the motor inhibition process is still unclear. Error monitoring is also involved in the stop signal task. Error responses that do not complete, i.e., partial errors, may require different error monitoring mechanisms relative to an overt error. Thus, in this study, we included a “continue go” (Cont_Go) condition to the stop signal task to investigate the inhibitory control process. To establish the finer difference in error processing (partial vs. full unsuccessful stop (USST)), a grip-force device was used in tandem with electroencephalographic (EEG), and the time-frequency characteristics were computed with Hilbert–Huang transform (HHT). Relative to Cont_Go, HHT results reveal (1) an increased beta and low gamma power for successful stop trials, indicating an electrophysiological index of inhibitory control, (2) an enhanced theta and alpha power for full USST trials that may mirror error processing. Additionally, the higher theta and alpha power observed in partial over full USST trials around 100 ms before the response onset, indicating the early detection of error and the corresponding correction process. Together, this study extends our understanding of the finer motor inhibition control and its dynamic electrophysiological mechanisms. MDPI 2021-04-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8070019/ /pubmed/33918711 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11040478 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Nguyen, Trung Van
Balachandran, Prasad
Muggleton, Neil G.
Liang, Wei-Kuang
Juan, Chi-Hung
Dynamical EEG Indices of Progressive Motor Inhibition and Error-Monitoring
title Dynamical EEG Indices of Progressive Motor Inhibition and Error-Monitoring
title_full Dynamical EEG Indices of Progressive Motor Inhibition and Error-Monitoring
title_fullStr Dynamical EEG Indices of Progressive Motor Inhibition and Error-Monitoring
title_full_unstemmed Dynamical EEG Indices of Progressive Motor Inhibition and Error-Monitoring
title_short Dynamical EEG Indices of Progressive Motor Inhibition and Error-Monitoring
title_sort dynamical eeg indices of progressive motor inhibition and error-monitoring
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8070019/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33918711
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11040478
work_keys_str_mv AT nguyentrungvan dynamicaleegindicesofprogressivemotorinhibitionanderrormonitoring
AT balachandranprasad dynamicaleegindicesofprogressivemotorinhibitionanderrormonitoring
AT muggletonneilg dynamicaleegindicesofprogressivemotorinhibitionanderrormonitoring
AT liangweikuang dynamicaleegindicesofprogressivemotorinhibitionanderrormonitoring
AT juanchihung dynamicaleegindicesofprogressivemotorinhibitionanderrormonitoring