Logo image
Prepotent motor activity and inhibitory control demands in different variants of the go/no‐go paradigm
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Prepotent motor activity and inhibitory control demands in different variants of the go/no‐go paradigm

Jan R Wessel
Psychophysiology, Vol.55(3), pp.e12871-n/a
03/2018
DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12871
PMID: 28390090

View Online

Abstract

Inhibitory control enables humans to stop prepotent motor activity, and is commonly studied using go/no‐go or stop‐signal tasks. In stop‐signal tasks, prepotent motor activity is elicited by delaying stop signals relative to go signals. In go/no‐go tasks, however, trials include only one signal—go or no‐go. Hence, prepotent motor activity has to be ensured differently—for example, by using rare no‐go trials and short trial durations. However, a literature survey shows that ∼40% of studies use equiprobable go/no‐go trials and ∼20% use long stimulus‐stimulus intervals (> 4 s). It is unclear whether such slow‐paced, equiprobable go/no‐go tasks elicit prepotent motor activity and probe inhibitory control. We recorded EEG during four go/no‐go tasks, varying in no‐go probability and trial duration. We quantified prepotent motor activity on successfully inhibited no‐go trials using the lateralized readiness potential. Only fast‐paced go/no‐go tasks with rare no‐go trials reliably evoked such activity. We then used a stop‐signal task and independent component analysis to isolate an established neural signature of inhibitory control, and investigated this signature's activity across the go/no‐go tasks. Across tasks, increased prepotent motor activity on individual no‐go trials was accompanied by greater frontocentral P3 amplitudes, confirming it as an index of inhibition. Crucially, this inhibition‐related activity showed a 75% reduction in slow‐paced, equiprobable go/no‐go tasks compared to fast‐paced, rare no‐go versions. Therefore, since many common go/no‐go task configurations do not reliably evoke prepotent motor activity, their inhibitory requirements are greatly reduced. This has major implications for the usage of go/no‐go tasks in psychological experiments.
ERPs go/no‐go stop‐signal task inhibitory control P300

Details

Logo image