Cargando…
Action Postponing and Restraint Varies among Sensory Modalities
Proactive inhibition is divided into two components: action postponing (AP), which refers to slowing the onset of response, and action restraint (AR), which refers to preventing the response. To date, several studies have reported alterations in proactive inhibition and its associated neural process...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9688532/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36421854 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12111530 |
_version_ | 1784836292107829248 |
---|---|
author | Ikarashi, Koyuki Sato, Daisuke Ochi, Genta Fujimoto, Tomomi Yamashiro, Koya |
author_facet | Ikarashi, Koyuki Sato, Daisuke Ochi, Genta Fujimoto, Tomomi Yamashiro, Koya |
author_sort | Ikarashi, Koyuki |
collection | PubMed |
description | Proactive inhibition is divided into two components: action postponing (AP), which refers to slowing the onset of response, and action restraint (AR), which refers to preventing the response. To date, several studies have reported alterations in proactive inhibition and its associated neural processing among sensory modalities; however, this remains inconclusive owing to several methodological issues. This study aimed to clarify the differences in AP and AR and their neural processing among visual, auditory, and somatosensory modalities using an appropriate experimental paradigm that can assess AP and AR separately. The postponing time calculated by subtracting simple reaction time from Go signal reaction time was shorter in the visual modality than in the other modalities. This was explained by faster neural processing for conflict monitoring induced by anticipating the presence of the No-go signal, supported by the shorter latency of AP-related N2. Furthermore, the percentage of false alarms, which is the reaction to No-go signals, was lower in the visual modality than in the auditory modality. This was attributed to higher neural resources for conflict monitoring induced by the presence of No-go signals, supported by the larger amplitudes of AR-related N2. Our findings revealed the differences in AP and AR and their neural processing among sensory modalities. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9688532 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96885322022-11-25 Action Postponing and Restraint Varies among Sensory Modalities Ikarashi, Koyuki Sato, Daisuke Ochi, Genta Fujimoto, Tomomi Yamashiro, Koya Brain Sci Article Proactive inhibition is divided into two components: action postponing (AP), which refers to slowing the onset of response, and action restraint (AR), which refers to preventing the response. To date, several studies have reported alterations in proactive inhibition and its associated neural processing among sensory modalities; however, this remains inconclusive owing to several methodological issues. This study aimed to clarify the differences in AP and AR and their neural processing among visual, auditory, and somatosensory modalities using an appropriate experimental paradigm that can assess AP and AR separately. The postponing time calculated by subtracting simple reaction time from Go signal reaction time was shorter in the visual modality than in the other modalities. This was explained by faster neural processing for conflict monitoring induced by anticipating the presence of the No-go signal, supported by the shorter latency of AP-related N2. Furthermore, the percentage of false alarms, which is the reaction to No-go signals, was lower in the visual modality than in the auditory modality. This was attributed to higher neural resources for conflict monitoring induced by the presence of No-go signals, supported by the larger amplitudes of AR-related N2. Our findings revealed the differences in AP and AR and their neural processing among sensory modalities. MDPI 2022-11-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9688532/ /pubmed/36421854 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12111530 Text en © 2022 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 Ikarashi, Koyuki Sato, Daisuke Ochi, Genta Fujimoto, Tomomi Yamashiro, Koya Action Postponing and Restraint Varies among Sensory Modalities |
title | Action Postponing and Restraint Varies among Sensory Modalities |
title_full | Action Postponing and Restraint Varies among Sensory Modalities |
title_fullStr | Action Postponing and Restraint Varies among Sensory Modalities |
title_full_unstemmed | Action Postponing and Restraint Varies among Sensory Modalities |
title_short | Action Postponing and Restraint Varies among Sensory Modalities |
title_sort | action postponing and restraint varies among sensory modalities |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9688532/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36421854 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12111530 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ikarashikoyuki actionpostponingandrestraintvariesamongsensorymodalities AT satodaisuke actionpostponingandrestraintvariesamongsensorymodalities AT ochigenta actionpostponingandrestraintvariesamongsensorymodalities AT fujimototomomi actionpostponingandrestraintvariesamongsensorymodalities AT yamashirokoya actionpostponingandrestraintvariesamongsensorymodalities |