Abstract:Background and Aims: Adaptive behavior depends on the ability to voluntarily suppress context-inappropriate behaviors, a process referred to as response inhibition. Stop Signal tests (SSTs) are the most frequently studied paradigm used to assess response inhibition. Previous studies of SSTs have indicated that inhibitory control behavior can be explained using a common model in which GO and STOP processes are initiated independent from one and another, and the process that is completed first determines whether the behavior is elicited (GO process) or terminated (STOP process). Consistent with this model, studies have indicated that individuals strategically delay their behaviors during SSTs in order to increase their stopping abilities. Despite being controlled by distinct neural systems, prior studies have largely documented similar inhibitory control performance across eye and hand movements. Though, no existing studies have compared the extent to which individuals strategically delay behavior across different effectors is not yet clear. Here, we compared the extent to which inhibitory control processes and the cognitive strategies that support them during oculomotor and manual motor behaviors. Methods: We examined 29 healthy individuals who performed parallel oculomotor and manual motor SSTs. Participants also completed a separate block of GO trials administered prior to the Stop Signal tests to assess baseline reaction times for each effector and reaction time increases during interleaved GO trials of the SST. Results: Our results showed that stopping errors increased for both effectors as the interval between GO and STOP cues was increased (i.e., stop signal delay), but performance deteriorated more rapidly for eye compared to hand movements with increases in stop signal delay. During GO trials, participants delayed the initiation of their responses for each effector, and greater slowing of reaction times on GO trials was associated with increased accuracy on STOP trials for both effectors. However, participants delayed their eye movements to a lesser degree than their hand movements, and strategic reaction time slowing was a stronger determinant of stopping accuracy for hand compared to eye movements. Overall, stopping accuracies for eye and hand movements were only modestly correlated, and the time it took individuals to cancel a response was not related for eye and hand movements. Discussion and Conclusion: Our findings that GO and STOP processes are independent and that individuals strategically delay their behavioral responses to increase stopping accuracy regardless of effector indicate that inhibitory control of oculomotor and manual motor behaviors both follow common guiding principles. Yet, our findings document that eye movements are more difficult to inhibit than hand movements, and the timing, magnitude, and impact of cognitive control strategies used to support voluntary response inhibition are less robust for eye compared to hand movements. This suggests that inhibitory control systems also show unique characteristics that are behavior-dependent. This conclusion is consistent with neurophysiological evidence showing important differences in the architecture and functional properties of the neural systems involved in inhibitory control of eye and hand movements. It also suggests that characterizing inhibitory control processes in health and disease requires effector-specific analysis.

Inhibitory Control Processes and the Strategies That Support Them During Hand and Eye Movements.

The Role of the Frontal and Parietal Cortex in Proactive and Reactive Inhibitory Control: A Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Study

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

Selective cancellation of reactive or anticipated movements: Differences in speed of action reprogramming, but not stopping

Reduced Proactive Control Processes Associated with Behavioral Response Inhibition Deficits in Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Efficacy of inhibitory control depends on procrastination and deceleration in saccade planning

Incentives and voluntary stopping: The intentional hand task

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

Attentional spatial cueing of the stop-signal affects the ability to suppress behavioural responses

Motor inhibition parameters are reflected in the kinetic and kinematic of gait initiation in a step version of the Stop Signal Task

A touching advantage: cross-modal stop-signals improve reactive response inhibition

Force monitoring reveals single trial dynamics of motor control in a stop signal task

Attentional bias on motor control: is motor inhibition influenced by attentional reorienting?

The effects of conscious movement investment on inhibiting a simple response

From eyes to hands: Transfer of learning in the Simon task across motor effectors

Failed stopping transiently suppresses the electromyogram in task-irrelevant muscles

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

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

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

Stimulus Feature Conflicts Enhance Motor Inhibitory Control Processes in the Lateral Prefrontal Cortex

Cerebellar Contributions to Proactive and Reactive Control in the Stop Signal Task: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies