English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

It has been proposed that, in a stop-signal task (SST), independent go- and stop-processes “race” to control behavior. If the go-process wins, an overt response is produced, whereas, if the stop-process wins, the response is withheld. One prediction that follows from this proposal is that, if the activation associated with one process is enhanced, it is more likely to win the race. We looked to determine whether these initiation and inhibition processes (and thus response outcomes) could be manipulated by using a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), which has been shown to provide additional response activation. In the present study, participants were to respond to a visual go-stimulus; however, if a subsequent stop-signal appeared, they were to inhibit the response. The stop-signal was presented at a delay corresponding to a probability of responding of 0.4 (determined from a baseline block of trials). On stop-trials, a SAS was presented either simultaneously with the go-signal or stop-signal or 100, 150, or 200 ms following the stop-signal. Results showed that presenting a SAS during stop-trials led to an increase in probability of responding when presented with or following the stop-signal. The latency of SAS responses at the stop-signal + 150 ms and stop-signal + 200 ms probe times suggests that they would have been voluntarily inhibited but instead were involuntarily initiated by the SAS. Thus results demonstrate that go-activation endures even 200 ms following a stop-signal and remains accessible well after the response has been inhibited, providing evidence against a winner-take-all race between independent go- and stop-processes.    NEW &amp; NOTEWORTHY In this study, a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) was used to determine whether response outcome could be manipulated in a stop-signal task. Results revealed that presenting a SAS during stop-signal trials led to an increase in probability of responding even when presented 200 ms following the stop-signal. The latency of SAS responses indicates that go-activation remains accessible and modifiable well after the response is voluntarily inhibited, providing evidence against an irrevocable commitment to inhibition.

Go-activation endures following the presentation of a stop-signal: evidence from startle