z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Stopping a response has global or nonglobal effects on the motor system depending on preparation
Author(s) -
Ian Greenhouse,
Caitlin L. Oldenkamp,
Adam R. Aron
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal of neurophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.302
H-Index - 245
eISSN - 1522-1598
pISSN - 0022-3077
DOI - 10.1152/jn.00704.2011
Subject(s) - anticipation (artificial intelligence) , transcranial magnetic stimulation , psychology , stop signal , motor cortex , task (project management) , neuroscience , primary motor cortex , signal (programming language) , motor system , phase (matter) , physical medicine and rehabilitation , stimulation , audiology , computer science , medicine , physics , artificial intelligence , telecommunications , management , quantum mechanics , economics , programming language , latency (audio)
Much research has focused on how people stop initiated response tendencies when instructed by a signal. Stopping of this kind appears to have global effects on the motor system. For example, by delivering transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the leg area of the primary motor cortex, it is possible to detect suppression in the leg when the hand is being stopped (Badry R et al. Suppression of human cortico-motoneuronal excitability during the stop-signal task. Clin Neurophysiol 120: 1717-1723, 2009). Here, we asked if such "global suppression" can be observed proactively, i.e., when people anticipate they might have to stop. We used a conditional stop signal task, which allows the measurement of both an "anticipation phase" (i.e., where proactive control is applied) and a "stopping" phase. TMS was delivered during the anticipation phase (experiment 1) and also during the stopping phase (experiments 1 and 2) to measure leg excitability. During the anticipation phase, we did not observe leg suppression, but we did during the stopping phase, consistent with Badry et al. (2009). Moreover, when we split the subject groups into those who slowed down behaviorally (i.e., exercised proactive control) and those who did not, we found that subjects who slowed did not show leg suppression when they stopped, whereas those who did not slow did show leg suppression when they stopped. These results suggest that if subjects prepare to stop, then they do so without global effects on the motor system. Thus, preparation allows them to stop more selectively.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom