Abstract

Humans are rarely faced with one simple task, but are typically confronted with complex stimulus constellations and varying stimulus-relevance in a given situation. Through modifying the prototypical stop-signal task and by combined recording and analysis of electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we studied the effects of stimulus relevance for the generation of a response or its inhibition. Stimulus response mappings were modified by contextual cues, indicating which of two different stimuli following a go stimulus was relevant for stopping. Overall, response inhibition, that is comparing successful stopping to a stop-signal against go-signal related processes, was associated with increased activity in right inferior and left midfrontal regions, as well as increased EEG delta and theta power; however, stimulus-response conditions in which the most infrequent stop-signal was relevant for inhibition, were associated with decreased activity in regions typically involved in response inhibition, as well as decreased activity in the delta and theta bands as compared to conditions wherein the relevant stop-signal frequency was higher. Behaviorally, this (aforementioned) condition, which demanded inhibition only from the most infrequent stimulus, was also associated with reduced reaction times and lower error rates. This pattern of results does not align with typical stimulus frequency-driven findings and suggests interplay between task relevance and stimulus frequency of the stop-signal. Moreover, with a multimodal EEG-fMRI analysis, we demonstrated significant parameterization for response inhibition with delta, theta and beta time-frequency values, which may be interpreted as reflecting conflict monitoring, evaluative and/or motor processes as suggested by previous work (Huster et al., 2013; Aron, 2011). Further multimodal results suggest a possible neurophysiological and behavioral benefit under conditions whereby the most infrequent stimulus demanded inhibition, indicating that the frequency of the stop-signal interacts with the current stimulus-response contingency. These results demonstrate that response inhibition is prone to influence from other cognitive functions, making it difficult to dissociate real inhibitory capabilities from the influence of moderating mechanisms.

Highlights

  • Several cognitive functions allow humans the ability to flexibly adapt and change their behavior in a given situation

  • When contrasting Stim2Context1 with Stim2-Context3, which is another possibility to test for variations in S-R mappings while controlling for frequency of the relevant stop signal, frontocentral activity was not modulated under these conditions

  • These effects indicated increased regional delta activity during response inhibition; during Context2 containing the least frequently presented relevant stop stimuli, a relative decrease of delta activity is observed as compared to when S-R mappings indicate that all stop signals are relevant (Context1)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Several cognitive functions allow humans the ability to flexibly adapt and change their behavior in a given situation. In a typical traffic situation, traffic lights turn yellow before turning red in order to prepare the driver for an upcoming stop or to prepare drivers for the green light, which may change the driver’s current behavior, in that he would eventually reduce his acceleration in preparation for the red light or begin to prepare for acceleration, in the case that he expects a green light. Participants must withhold their response in reaction to infrequently presented stop-signals (i.e. exerting inhibition), which appear after the initial go-signal with a delay (usually termed the stop-signal delay or ‘‘SSD’’) This paradigm may be modified by introducing contextual variations of stimulus-response mappings via changing the relevance and frequency of the ‘‘stop’’ stimuli, allowing us to discern effects of stop stimuli frequency, and how additional task-irrelevant stimuli influence the stopping processes, if at all

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call