Mapping Motor Inhibition: Conjunctive Brain Activations across Different Versions of Go/No-Go and Stop Tasks

Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London
NeuroImage (Impact Factor: 6.36). 03/2001; 13(2):250-261. DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2000.0685
Source: PubMed


Conjunctionanalysis methods were used in functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate brain regions commonly activated in subjects performing different versions of go/no-go and stop tasks, differing in probability of inhibitory signals and/or contrast conditions. Generic brain activation maps highlighted brain regions commonly activated in (a) two different go/no-go task versions, (b) three different stop task versions, and (c) all 5 inhibition task versions. Comparison between the generic activation maps of stop and go/no-go task versions revealed inhibitory mechanisms specific to go/no-go or stop task performance in 15 healthy, right-handed, male adults. In the go/no-go task a motor response had to be selectively executed or inhibited in either 50% or 30% of trials. In the stop task, the motor response to a go-stimulus had to be retracted on either 50 or 30% of trials, indicated by a stop signal, shortly (250 ms) following the go-stimulus. The shared “inhibitory” neurocognitive network by all inhibition tasks comprised mesial, medial, and inferior frontal and parietal cortices. Generic activation of the go/no-go task versions identified bilateral, but more predominantly left hemispheric mesial, medial, and inferior frontal and parietal cortices. Common activation to all stop task versions was in predominantly right hemispheric anterior cingulate, supplementary motor area, inferior prefrontal, and parietal cortices. On direct comparison between generic stop and go/no-go activation maps increased BOLD signal was observed in left hemispheric dorsolateral prefrontal, medial, and parietal cortices during the go/no-go task, presumably reflectinga left frontoparietal specialization for response selection.

Download full-text


Available from: Andy Simmons, Oct 07, 2015
40 Reads
  • Source
    • "The go/no-go task (adapted from Rubia et al., 2001) consisted of two blocks of 150 trials each. The visual stimulus was a white arrow presented centrally on a black screen. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence of the genetic correlates of inhibitory control is scant. Two previously studied dopamine-related polymorphisms, COMT rs4680 and the SLC6A3 3' UTR 40-base-pair VNTR (rs28363170), have been associated with response inhibition, however with inconsistent findings. Here, we investigated the influence of these two polymorphisms in a large healthy adult sample (N = 515) on a response inhibition battery including the antisaccade, stop-signal, go/no-go and Stroop tasks as well as a psychometric measure of impulsivity (Barratt Impulsiveness Scale) (Experiment 1). Additionally, a subsample (N = 144) was studied while performing the go/no-go, stop-signal and antisaccade tasks in 3T fMRI (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, we did not find any significant associations of COMT or SLC6A3 with inhibitory performance or impulsivity. In Experiment 2, no association of COMT with BOLD was found. However, there were consistent main effects of SLC6A3 genotype in all inhibitory contrasts: Homozygosity of the 10R allele was associated with greater fronto-striatal BOLD response than genotypes with at least one 9R allele. These findings are consistent with meta-analyses showing that the 10R allele is associated with reduced striatal dopamine transporter expression, which in animal studies has been found to lead to increased extracellular dopamine levels. Our study thus supports the involvement of striatal dopamine in the neural mechanisms of cognitive control, in particular response inhibition. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Cortex 10/2015; 71:219-231. DOI:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.07.002 · 5.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Although it is not a given that EF task adaptations will retain the critical features of the original , multiple lines of evidence support the strength of these GNG variants for use with young children. For instance, studies indicate that the neural networks underlying children's GNG performance (Booth et al., 2003; Durston et al., 2002) broadly mirror that found with adults (albeit with children typically displaying greater degrees of activation; Garavan, Ross, Murphy, Roche, & Stein, 2002; Rubia et al., 2001). These modified GNG tasks also display good inter-task correlations with other established measures of inhibition and good reliability estimates (Simpson & Riggs, 2006; Wiebe et al., 2012). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although researchers agree that the first 5 years of life are critical for children’s developing executive functions (EFs), further advances are hindered by a lack of consensus on the design and selection of developmentally appropriate EF tasks for young children. Given this debate, well-established adult measures of EF routinely have been adapted for young children. Given young children’s comparatively limited cognitive capacities, however, such adaptations do not guarantee that the task’s critical EF demands are retained. To investigate this possibility, the current study examined the characteristics that optimize measurement of young children’s EFs—specifically, their inhibitory control—using the go/no-go (GNG) task as an exemplar. Sixty preschoolers completed six GNG tasks differing in stimulus animation, presentation time, and response location. Comparison EF tasks were administered to examine concurrent validity of GNG variants. Results indicated effects of stimulus presentation time and response location, with animation further enhancing task validity and reliability. This suggests that current GNG tasks deflate estimates of young children’s ability to inhibit, with implications for future design and selection of developmentally appropriate EF tasks.
    Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 09/2015; DOI:10.1177/0734282914562933 · 1.05 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Traditionally, inhibitory control processes are often examined using Go/NoGo tasks (Beste et al., 2011; Casey et al., 1997; Nieuwenhuis et al., 2003; Ocklenburg et al., 2013; Rubia et al., 2001; Stock et al., 2014). In these paradigms, stimulus–response contingencies that trigger largely automatized reactions are established. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The inhibition of inappropriate responses is a function known to rely on prefrontal cortex (PFC) functioning. Similarly, working memory processes are known to rely on the PFC. Even though these processes are usually closely intertwined and the functional neuroanatomy underlying these processes is largely overlapping, the influence of working memory load on inhibitory control process has remained largely elusive. In the current study, we therefore examine how response inhibition processes are modulated by working memory load. For this, we systematically increased the working memory load of participants by integrating mental rotation processes in a Go/NoGo paradigm. To examine the systems neurophysiology of these processes in detail, and to examine whether there are differential effects of working memory load on distinct response inhibition subprocesses, we applied event-related potentials (ERPs) in combination with source localization techniques. The data shows that after exceeding a certain threshold, inhibitory control processes are aggravated by working memory load. The neurophysiological data paralleled the behavioral data. However, it suggests that distinguishable response inhibition subprocesses are differentially modulated by working memory load: Changes were evident in the NoGo-P3 amplitude but not in the NoGo-N2 amplitude. On a systems level, this distinctive modulation of response inhibition subprocesses was related to differences in neural activity in the left inferior and middle frontal gyrus. We show that inhibitory control processes are impaired when the working memory load surpasses a certain threshold. This, however only applies to situations in which the necessity of inhibitory control processes cannot be easily detected on the basis of perceptual factors.
    NeuroImage 02/2015; 112. DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.060 · 6.36 Impact Factor
Show more