Biological PsychologyNeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article
How salience enhances inhibitory control: An analysis of electro-cortical mechanisms
J. Leon KenemansiD, Iris SchutteiD, Sam van BijneniD, H. N. Alexander LogemanniD
Abstract
Stop-signal tasks (SSTs) combined with human electro-cortical recordings (Event-Related Potentials, ERPs) have revealed mechanisms associated with successful stopping (relative to failed), presumably contributing to inhibitory control. The corresponding ERP signatures have been labeled stop N1 (+/- 100-ms latency), stop N2 (200 ms), and stop P3 (160-250 ms), and argued to reflect more proactive (N1) versus more reactive (N2, P3) mechanisms. However, stop N1 and stop N2, as well as latencies of stop-P3, appear to be quite inconsistent across studies. The present work addressed the possible influence of stop-signal salience, expecting high salience to induce clear stop N1s but reduced stop N2s, and short-latency stop P3s. Three SST varieties were combined with high-resolution EEG. An imperative visual (go) stimulus was occasionally followed by a subsequent (stop) stimulus that signalled to withhold the just initiated response. Stop-Signal Reaction Times (SSRTs) decreased linearly from visual-low to visual-high-salience to auditory. Auditory Stop N1 was replicated. A C1-like visual evoked potential (latency < 100 ms) was observed only with high salience, but not robustly associated with successful versus failed stops. Using the successful-failed contrast a visual stop-N1 analogue (112-156 ms post-stop-signal) was identified, as was right-frontal stop N2, but neither was sensitive to salience. Stop P3 had shorter latency for high than for low salience, and the extent of the early high-salience stop P3 correlated inversely with SSRT. These results suggest that salience-enhanced inhibitory control as manifest in SSRTs is associated with reactive rather than proactive electrocortical mechanisms.
- organism: human
- assay: electronic health records
- research focus: cell type annotation
- research focus: differential expression
- approach: statistical model
- approach: experimental assay
- Citations
- 18
- FWCI
- 2.54
- Field percentile
- top 11%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Reconsidering electrophysiological markers of response inhibition in light of trigger failures in the stop-signal task
Patrick Skippen, William Ross Fulham, … Frini Karayanidis·PsychophysiologyPeer-reviewed·Jul 29, 2020
- Frontal theta power prospectively associated with response inhibition
Daan van Rooij, Sam van Bijnen, … J. Leon Kenemans·bioRxiv·May 13, 2024
- Identifying discriminative EEG features of Unsuccessful and Successful stopping during the Stop Signal Task
Knut A. Skaug, Esten Høyland Leonardsen, Rene Jürgen Huster·bioRxiv·Apr 15, 2025
- Visual salience of the stop-signal affects neural dynamics of controlled inhibition
Pierpaolo Pani, Franco Giarrocco, … Stefano Ferraina·Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewed·Sep 18, 2018
- The P300 as marker of inhibitory control - fact or fiction?
Rene Jürgen Huster, Mari S. Messel, … Liisa Raud·CortexPeer-reviewed·Aug 5, 2020
- Differences in unity: the go/no-go and stop signal tasks rely on different inhibitory mechanisms
Liisa Raud, René Westerhausen, … Rene Jürgen Huster·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Jan 24, 2020