Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 167, Issue 2, pp 305–309

Fore-period effect and stop-signal reaction time

  • Chiang-Shan Ray Li
  • John H. Krystal
  • Daniel H. Mathalon
Research Note

Abstract

The effect of response readiness on the stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) in a stop-signal task was examined, with the stop-signal delay updated following a staircase procedure. We computed SSRT on the basis of a horse race model. A fore-period effect was computed, which described subjects’ readiness to respond to the GO signal. The results showed that the fore-period effect correlated positively with SSRT, providing evidence of the effect of response prepotency on stop signal processing. This finding suggests that response readiness needs to be accounted for in examining response inhibition in a stop-signal task.

Keywords

Response inhibition Impulsivity Stop signal task Go/no-go Attention 

References

  1. Armstrong IT, Munoz DP (2003) Inhibitory control of eye movements during oculomotor countermanding in adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Exp Brain Res 152:444–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Aaron AR, Fletcher PC, Bullmore ET, Sahakian BJ, Robbins TW (2003) Stop-signal inhibition disrupted by damage to right inferior frontal gyrus in humans. Nature Neurosci 6:115–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Badcock JC, Michie PT, Johnson L, Combrinck J (2002) Acts of control in schizophrenia: dissociating the components of inhibition. Psychol Med 32:287–297PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertelson P, Tisseyre F (1968) The time-course of preparation with regular and irregular foreperiods. Q J Exp Psychol 20:297–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colonius H, Özyurt J, Arndt PA (2001) Countermanding saccades with auditory stop signals: Testing the race model. Vision Res 41:1951–1968CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dimitrov M, Nakic M, Elpern-Waxman J, Granetz J, O’Grady J, Phipps M, Milne E, Logan GD, Hasher L, Grafman J (2003) Inhibitory attentional control in patients with frontal lobe damage. Brain Cognit 52:258–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dimoska A, Johnstone SJ, Barry RJ, Clarke AR (2003) Inhibitory motor control in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: event-related potentials in the stop-signal paradigm. Biol Psychiatr 54:1345–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fillmore MT, Rush CR (2002) Impaired inhibitory control of behavior in chronic cocaine users. Drug Alcohol Depend 66:265–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gauggel S, Rieger M, Feghoff TA (2004) Inhibition of ongoing responses in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 75:539–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Levitt H (1970) Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 49:467–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Logan GD (1994) On the ability to inhibit thought and action: a user’s guide to stop signal paradigm.In: Dagenbach D, Carr TH (eds) Inhibitory processes in attention, memory and language. Academic, San Diego, pp 189–239Google Scholar
  12. Logan GD, Cowan WB (1984) On the ability to inhibit thought and action: a theory of an act of control. Psychol Rev 91:295–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moeller FG, Barratt ES, Dougherty DM, Schmitz JM, Swann AC (2001) Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. Am J Psychiatr 158:1783–1793CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Oosterlaan J, Sergeant JA (1996) Inhibition in ADHD, aggressive, and anxious children: a biologically based model of child psychopathology. J Abnorm Child Psychol 24:19–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Overtoom CC, Kenemans JL, Verbaten MN, Kemner C, van der Molen MW, van Engeland H, Buitelaar JK, Koelega HS (2002) Inhibition in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a psychophysiological study of the stop task. Biol Psychiatr 51:668–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Özyurt J, Colonius H, Arndt PA (2003) Countermanding saccades: evidence against independent processing of go and stop signals. Percept Psychophys 65:420–428PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Rieger M, Gauggel S, Burmeister K (2003) Inhibition of ongoing responses following frontal, nonfrontal, and basal ganglia lesions. Neuropsychol 17:272–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rolls ET, Hornak J, Wade D, McGrath J (1994) Emotion-related learning in patients with social and emotional changes associated with frontal lobe damage. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 57:1518–1524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rubia K, Oosterlaan J, Sergeant JA, Brandeis D, von Leeuwen T (1998) Inhibitory dysfunction in hyperactive boys. Behav Brain Res 94:25–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Schachar R, Mota VL, Logan GD, Tannoc R, Klim P. (1995) Deficient inhibitory control in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Abnorm Child Psychol 23:411–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Stewart JA, Tannock R (1999) Inhibitory control differences following mild head injury. Brain Cognit 41:411–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van den Wildenberg WPM, van der Molen MW, Logan GD (2002) Reduced response readiness delays stop signal inhibition. Acta Psychol 111:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Williams BR, Ponesse JS, Schachar RJ (1999) Development of inhibitory control across the life span. Development Psychol 35:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Woodrow H (1914) The measurement of attention. Psychol Monogr 17:1–158Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiang-Shan Ray Li
    • 1
  • John H. Krystal
    • 1
  • Daniel H. Mathalon
    • 1
  1. 1.Connecticut Mental Health Center, S103 Department of PsychiatryYale UniversityNew HavenCTUSA

Personalised recommendations