• English
    • Norsk
  • English 
    • English
    • Norsk
  • Administration
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Øvrige samlinger
  • Høstingsarkiver
  • CRIStin høstingsarkiv
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Øvrige samlinger
  • Høstingsarkiver
  • CRIStin høstingsarkiv
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

A single mechanism for global and selective response inhibition under the influence of motor preparation

Raud, Liisa; Huster, Rene; Ivry, Richard B.; Labruna, Ludovica; Messel, Mari Sælid; Greenhouse, Ian
Journal article; AcceptedVersion; Peer reviewed
View/Open
Item resctricted until:2021-03-14
Raud_Prepin_Revision_July2020.pdf (1.299Mb)
Year
2020
Permanent link
http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-85109

CRIStin
1844855

Metadata
Show metadata
Appears in the following Collection
  • CRIStin høstingsarkiv [15868]
  • Psykologisk institutt [2921]
Original version
Journal of Neuroscience. 2020, 40 (41), 7921-7935, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0607-20.2020
Abstract
In our everyday behavior, we frequently cancel one movement while continuing others. Two competing models have been suggested for the cancellation of such specific actions: (1) the abrupt engagement of a unitary global inhibitory mechanism followed by reinitiation of the continuing actions; or (2) a balance between distinct global and selective inhibitory mechanisms. To evaluate these models, we examined behavioral and physiological markers of proactive control, motor preparation, and response inhibition using a combination of behavioral task performance measures, electromyography, electroencephalography, and motor evoked potentials elicited with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Healthy human participants of either sex performed two versions of a stop signal task with cues incorporating proactive control: a unimanual task involving the initiation and inhibition of a single response, and a bimanual task involving the selective stopping of one of two prepared responses. Stopping latencies, motor evoked potentials, and frontal β power (13–20 Hz) did not differ between the unimanual and bimanual tasks. However, evidence for selective proactive control before stopping was manifest in the bimanual condition as changes in corticomotor excitability, μ (9–14 Hz), and β (15–25 Hz) oscillations over sensorimotor cortex. Together, our results favor the recruitment of a single inhibitory stopping mechanism with the net behavioral output depending on the levels of action-specific motor preparation.
 
Responsible for this website 
University of Oslo Library


Contact Us 
duo-hjelp@ub.uio.no


Privacy policy
 

 

For students / employeesSubmit master thesisAccess to restricted material

Browse

All of DUOCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitles

For library staff

Login
RSS Feeds
 
Responsible for this website 
University of Oslo Library


Contact Us 
duo-hjelp@ub.uio.no


Privacy policy