Abstract:Background: Behavioral inhibitory control (BIC) depicts a cognitive function of inhibiting inappropriate dominant responses to meet the context requirement. Despite abundant research into neural substrates of BIC during the go/no-go and stop signal tasks, these tasks were consistently shown hard to isolate neural processes of response inhibition, which is of primary interest, from those of response generation. Therefore, it is necessary to explore neural substrates of BIC using the two-choice oddball (TCO) task, whose design of dual responses is thought to produce an inhibition effect free of the confounds of response generation. Objective: The current study aims at depicting neural substrates of performing behavioral inhibitory control in the two-choice oddball task, which designs dual responses to balance response generation. Also, neural substrates of performing BIC during this task are compared with those in the go/no-go task, which designs a motor response in a single condition. Methods: The present study integrated go/no-go (GNG) and TCO tasks into a new Three-Choice BIC paradigm, which consists of standard (75%), deviant (12.5%), and no-go (12.5%) conditions simultaneously. Forty-eight college students participated in this experiment, which required them to respond to standard (frequent) and deviant stimuli by pressing different keys, while inhibiting motor response to no-go stimuli. Conjunction analysis and ROI (region of interest) analysis were adopted to identify the unique neural mechanisms that subserve the processes of BIC. Results: Both tasks are effective in assessing BIC function, reflected by the significantly lower accuracy of no-go compared to standard condition in GNG, and the significantly lower accuracy and longer reaction time of deviant compared to standard condition in TCO. However, there were no significant differences between deviant and no-go conditions in accuracy. Moreover, functional neuroimaging has demonstrated that the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) activation was observed for no-go vs. standard contrast in the GNG task, but not in deviant vs. standard contrast in the TCO task, suggesting that ACC involvement is not a necessary component of BIC. Second, ROI analysis of areas that were co-activated in TCO and GNG showed co-activations in the right inferior frontal cortex (triangle and orbital), with the signals in the TCO task significantly higher than those in the GNG task. Conclusions: These findings show that the designed responses to both standard and deviant stimuli in the TCO task, compared to the GNG task, produced a more prominent prefrontal inhibitory processing and extinguished an unnecessary component of ACC activation during BIC. This implies that prefrontal involvement, but not that of ACC, is mandatory for the successful performance of inhibiting prepotent behaviors.

The neuropsychopharmacology of action inhibition: cross-species translation of the stop-signal and go/no-go tasks

Prefrontal and Monoaminergic Contributions to Stop-Signal Task Performance in Rats.

Inhibition and Impulsivity: Behavioral and Neural Basis of Response Control

Noradrenergic Versus Dopaminergic Modulation of Impulsivity, Attention and Monitoring Behaviour in Rats Performing the Stop-Signal Task

A Consensus Guide to Capturing the Ability to Inhibit Actions and Impulsive Behaviors in the Stop-Signal Task

Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the differential effect of reward prospect on response selection and inhibition

Dissociable Effects of Noradrenaline, Dopamine, and Serotonin Uptake Blockade on Stop Task Performance in Rats

The Cognitive Neuroscience Basis of Behavior Inhibition:A Difference Analysis Based on Two Behavior Inhibition Tasks

Contrasting Roles for Dopamine D1 and D2 Receptor Subtypes in the Dorsomedial Striatum but Not the Nucleus Accumbens Core During Behavioral Inhibition in the Stop-Signal Task in Rats.

Go/No-Go Ratios Modulate Inhibition-Related Brain Activity: An Event-Related Potential Study

Behavioral and neurophysiological signatures of cognitive control in humans and rats

Neural Substrates of the Interaction of Emotional Stimulus Processing and Motor Inhibitory Control: an Emotional Linguistic Go/no-Go Fmri Study

Cross‐species Studies of Cognition Relevant to Drug Discovery: a Translational Approach

Neural substrates of behavioral inhibitory control during the two-choice oddball task: functional neuroimaging evidence

Brain networks subserving fixed versus performance-adjusted delay stop trials in a stop signal task.

A differential impact of action–effect temporal contiguity on different measures of response inhibition in the Go\No-Go and Stop-signal paradigms

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

The "when" and "where" of the interplay between attentional capture and response inhibition during a Go/NoGo variant

Shifting and Stopping: Fronto-Striatal Substrates, Neurochemical Modulation and Clinical Implications.

Evidence for non-selective response inhibition in uncertain contexts revealed by combined meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis of fMRI data

Response inhibition is more effortful than response activation: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.