Distinct frontal systems for response inhibition, attentional capture, and error processing.

Division of Experimental Medicine, Imperial College London, London W12 0NN, United Kingdom.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Impact Factor: 9.81). 03/2010; 107(13):6106-11. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1000175107
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Stopping an action in response to an unexpected event requires both that the event is attended to, and that the action is inhibited. Previous neuroimaging investigations of stopping have failed to adequately separate these cognitive elements. Here we used a version of the widely used Stop Signal Task that controls for the attentional capture of stop signals. This allowed us to fractionate the contributions of frontal regions, including the right inferior frontal gyrus and medial frontal cortex, to attentional capture, response inhibition, and error processing. A ventral attentional system, including the right inferior frontal gyrus, has been shown to respond to unexpected stimuli. In line with this evidence, we reasoned that lateral frontal regions support attentional capture, whereas medial frontal regions, including the presupplementary motor area (pre-SMA), actually inhibit the ongoing action. We tested this hypothesis by contrasting the brain networks associated with the presentation of unexpected stimuli against those associated with outright stopping. Functional MRI images were obtained in 26 healthy volunteers. Successful stopping was associated with activation of the right inferior frontal gyrus, as well as the pre-SMA. However, only activation of the pre-SMA differentiated stopping from a high-level baseline that controlled for attentional capture. As expected, unsuccessful attempts at stopping activated the anterior cingulate cortex. In keeping with work in nonhuman primates these findings demonstrate that successful motor inhibition is specifically associated with pre-SMA activation.

Download full-text


Available from: Xavier De Boissezon, Oct 17, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The subjective belief of what will happen plays an important role across many cognitive domains, including response inhibition. However, tasks that study inhibition do not distinguish between the processing of objective contextual cues indicating stop-signal probability and the subjective expectation that a stop-signal will or will not occur. Here we investigated the effects of stop-signal probability and the expectation of a stop-signal on proactive inhibition. Twenty participants performed a modified stop-signal anticipation task while being scanned with functional magnetic resonance imaging. At the beginning of each trial, the stop-signal probability was indicated by a cue (0% or > 0%), and participants had to indicate whether they expected a stop-signal to occur (yes/no/don't know). Participants slowed down responding on trials with a > 0% stop-signal probability, but this proactive response slowing was even greater when they expected a stop-signal to occur. Analyses were performed in brain regions previously associated with proactive inhibition. Activation in the striatum, supplementary motor area and left dorsal premotor cortex during the cue period was increased when participants expected a stop-signal to occur. In contrast, activation in the right inferior frontal gyrus and right inferior parietal cortex activity during the stimulus-response period was related to the processing of contextual cues signalling objective stop-signal probability, regardless of expectation. These data show that proactive inhibition depends on both the processing of objective contextual task information and the subjective expectation of stop-signals. © 2015 Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
    European Journal of Neuroscience 04/2015; 41(8). DOI:10.1111/ejn.12879 · 3.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Adult ADHD has been linked to impaired motor response inhibition and reduced associated activation in the right inferior frontal cortex (IFC). However, it is unclear whether abnormal inferior frontal activation in adult ADHD is specifically related to a response inhibition deficit or reflects a more general deficit in attentional processing. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we tested a group of 19 ADHD patients with no comorbidities and a group of 19 healthy control volunteers on a modified go/no-go task that has been shown previously to distinguish between cortical responses related to response inhibition and attentional shifting. Relative to the healthy controls, ADHD patients showed increased commission errors and reduced activation in inferior frontal cortex during response inhibition. Crucially, this reduced activation was observed when controlling for attentional processing, suggesting that hypoactivation in right IFC in ADHD is specifically related to impaired response inhibition. The results are consistent with the notion of a selective neurocognitive deficit in response inhibition in adult ADHD associated with abnormal functional activation in the prefrontal cortex, whilst ruling out likely group differences in attentional orienting, arousal and motivation. Hum Brain Mapp, 2014. © 2014 The Authors Human Brain Mapping Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Human Brain Mapping 10/2014; 35(10). DOI:10.1002/hbm.22539 · 6.92 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Although the pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA) is one of the most frequently reported areas of activation in functional imaging studies, the role of this brain region in cognition is still a matter of intense debate. Here we present a patient with a focal lesion of caudal pre-SMA who displays a selective deficit in updating a response plan to switch actions, but shows no impairment when required to withhold a response – stopping. Materials & Methods The patient and a control group underwent three tasks designed to measure different aspects of cognitive control and executive function. Results The pre-SMA patient displayed no impairment when responding in the face of distracting stimuli (Eriksen flanker paradigm), or when required to halt an on-going response (STOP task). However, a specific deficit was observed when she was required to rapidly switch between response plans (CHANGE task). Conclusions These findings suggest that the caudal pre-SMA may have a particularly important role in a network of brain regions required for rapidly updating and implementing response plans. The lack of any significant impairment on other measures of cognitive control suggests that this is not likely due to a global deficit in cognitive control. We discuss the implications of these results in the context of current theories of pre-SMA function.
    Cortex 09/2014; 63. DOI:10.1016/j.cortex.2014.08.004 · 6.04 Impact Factor