Does action-stopping involve separate pause and cancel processes? A view from premotor cortex

Common and Unique Neurophysiological Processes That Support the Stopping and Revising of Actions

Inhibitory control is a crucial cognitive-control ability for behavioral flexibility, which has been extensively investigated through action-stopping tasks. Multiple neurophysiological features have been proposed as "signatures" of inhibitory control during action-stopping, though the processes indexed by these signatures are still controversially discussed. The present study aimed to disentangle these processes by comparing simple stopping situations with those in which additional action revisions were needed. Three experiments in female and male humans were performed to characterize the neurophysiological dynamics involved in action-stopping and action-changing, with hypotheses derived from recently developed two-stage "pause-then-cancel" models of inhibitory control. Both stopping and revising an action triggered an early, broad "pause"-process, marked by frontal EEG β-frequency bursting and nonselective suppression of corticospinal excitability. However, EMG showed that motor activity was only partially inhibited by this "pause" and that this activity could be modulated during action revision. In line with two-stage models of inhibitory control, subsequent frontocentral EEG activity after this initial "pause" selectively scaled depending on the required action revisions, with more activity observed for more complex revisions. This demonstrates the presence of a selective, effector-specific "retune" phase as the second process involved in action-stopping and action revision. Together, these findings show that inhibitory control is implemented over an extended period of time and in at least two phases. We are further able to align the most commonly proposed neurophysiological signatures to these phases and show that they are differentially modulated by the complexity of action revision.

Rethinking the external globus pallidus and information flow in cortico-basal ganglia-thalamic circuits

For decades, the external globus pallidus (GPe) has been viewed as a passive way-station in the indirect pathway of the cortico-basal ganglia-thalamic (CBGT) circuit, sandwiched between striatal inputs and basal ganglia outputs. According to this model, one-way descending striatal signals in the indirect pathway amplify the suppression of downstream thalamic nuclei by inhibiting GPe activity. Here, we revisit this assumption, in light of new and emerging work on the cellular complexity, connectivity and functional role of the GPe in behaviour. We show how, according to this new circuit-level logic, the GPe is ideally positioned for relaying ascending and descending control signals within the basal ganglia. Focusing on the problem of inhibitory control, we illustrate how this bidirectional flow of information allows for the integration of reactive and proactive control mechanisms during action selection. Taken together, this new evidence points to the GPe as being a central hub in the CBGT circuit, participating in bidirectional information flow and linking multifaceted control signals to regulate behaviour.

Common and unique neurophysiological signatures for the stopping and revising of actions reveal the temporal dynamics of inhibitory control

Inhibitory control is a crucial cognitive-control ability for behavioral flexibility that has been extensively investigated through action-stopping tasks. Multiple neurophysiological features have been proposed to represent 'signatures' of inhibitory control during action-stopping, though the processes signified by these signatures are still controversially discussed. The present study aimed to disentangle these processes by comparing simple stopping situations with those in which additional action revisions were needed. Three experiments in female and male humans were performed to characterize the neurophysiological dynamics involved in action-stopping and - changing, with hypotheses derived from recently developed two-stage 'pause-then-cancel' models of inhibitory control. Both stopping and revising an action triggered an early broad 'pause'-process, marked by frontal EEG β-bursts and non-selective suppression of corticospinal excitability. However, partial-EMG responses showed that motor activity was only partially inhibited by this 'pause', and that this activity can be further modulated during action-revision. In line with two-stage models of inhibitory control, subsequent frontocentral EEG activity after this initial 'pause' selectively scaled depending on the required action revisions, with more activity observed for more complex revisions. This demonstrates the presence of a selective, effector-specific 'retune' phase as the second process involved in action-stopping and -revision. Together, these findings show that inhibitory control is implemented over an extended period of time and in at least two phases. We are further able to align the most commonly proposed neurophysiological signatures to these phases and show that they are differentially modulated by the complexity of action-revision.

The role of dorsal premotor cortex in joint action inhibition

Behavioral interpersonal coordination requires smooth negotiation of actions in time and space (joint action-JA). Inhibitory control may play a role in fine-tuning appropriate coordinative responses. To date, little research has been conducted on motor inhibition during JA and on the modulatory influence that premotor areas might exert on inhibitory control. Here, we used an interactive task in which subjects were required to reach and open a bottle using one hand. The bottle was held and stabilized by a co-actor (JA) or by a mechanical holder (vice clamp, no-JA). We recorded two TMS-based indices of inhibition (short-interval intracortical inhibition-sICI; cortical silent period-cSP) during the reaching phase of the task. These reflect fast intracortical (GABAa-mediated) and slow corticospinal (GABAb-mediated) inhibition. Offline continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS) was used to interfere with dorsal premotor cortex (PMd), ventral premotor cortex (PMv), and control site (vertex) before the execution of the task. Our results confirm a dissociation between fast and slow inhibition during JA coordination and provide evidence that premotor areas drive only slow inhibitory mechanisms, which in turn may reflect behavioral co-adaptation between trials. Exploratory analyses further suggest that PMd, more than PMv, is the key source of modulatory drive sculpting movements, according to the socio-interactive context.

A global pause generates nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping

Selective response inhibition may be required when stopping a part of a multicomponent action. A persistent response delay (stopping-interference effect) indicates nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping. This study aimed to elucidate whether nonselective response inhibition is the consequence of a global pause process during attentional capture or specific to a nonselective cancel process during selective stopping. Twenty healthy human participants performed a bimanual anticipatory response inhibition paradigm with selective stop and ignore signals. Frontocentral and sensorimotor beta-bursts were recorded with electroencephalography. Corticomotor excitability and short-interval intracortical inhibition in primary motor cortex were recorded with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Behaviorally, responses in the non-signaled hand were delayed during selective ignore and stop trials. The response delay was largest during selective stop trials and indicated that stopping-interference could not be attributed entirely to attentional capture. A stimulus-nonselective increase in frontocentral beta-bursts occurred during stop and ignore trials. Sensorimotor response inhibition was reflected in maintenance of beta-bursts and short-interval intracortical inhibition relative to disinhibition observed during go trials. Response inhibition signatures were not associated with the magnitude of stopping-interference. Therefore, nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping results primarily from a nonselective pause process but does not entirely account for the stopping-interference effect.